
31CZZXSC 



XKZ=»C 



S 



The Present Crisis 

— and — 

A Way Out 



•» — MC 



30C=XIC 



XKZZDISC 



The Present Crisis 

and 

A Way Out 

BY 
HOMER COOLIDGE CHAPIN, 



KENESAW PUBLISHING CO. (Not Inc.) 
Chicago, 1920. 






Copyright, 1920, 

By 

HOMER COOLIDGE CHAPIN. 



MAR - i {320 



©GU559859 



<wo / 



THE PRESENT CRISIS AND A WAY OUT. 

Section 1. Introduction 5 

Present Unrest. 
Solution Proposed. 

Section 2. Collective Effort in the Past - - - - 8 

Section 3. Collective Effort in the Present - - - 21 
The Corporation. 
The Labor Union. 
Eussia. 
North Dakota. 

Section 4. Socialism 31 

Section 5. The End and Aim of Government - - 46 

Ancient Idea. 

Continental Idea. 

Early English Idea. 

Christ's Idea. 

Section 6. Americanism - - - 59 

Section 7. The Corporation 66 

The Evils It Gives Rise To. 

How They Conflict with Americanism and 
Liberty. 

Section 8. The "Way Out 82 

Section 9. Conclusion 97 

Appendix I. Feudal System 103 

Appendix II. Extracts from the Magna Charta - - 106 
Appendix III. The Mayflower Compact - '- - - - 109 
Appendix IV. References ---- 110 

3 



NOTE 

The conclusions stated in this little book were sug- 
gested by three works: Cunningham's "Western Ciliviza- 
tion," Ferrero's "Greatness and Decline of Borne," and 
Fisk's "Beginnings of New England/' a study of which 
revealed the folly of adopting any form of Nationalized 
Collective Effort, if Liberty and Freedom are to be pre- 
served and the progress of the world continued. No mat- 
ter how beautiful the various theories may be in concep- 
tion and intent, but one result can follow the adoption 
of any one of them— IMPEKIALISM. It should not be 
inferred that there is in any of the works mentioned 
above, a hint, even, of the conclusions arrived at. Only 
by reading them through carefully in the order named, 
and then comparing the industrial, economical and politi- 
cal phenomena of the past as these writers disclose them, 
with those of the present day, can those conclusions be 
reached. 



SECTION 1. 

Introduction. 

"Men generally " are discontented with the present and 
apprehensive as to the future. This unrest is not of 
recent origin. The great war was, in some respects, but 
an effect of it, and in coming years will be considered but 
a milestone in its course. To find its source, one must 
hark back at least to that early morn at Lexington and 
Concord when, at the sound of those guns that were 
"heard round the world," mankind everywhere was 
aroused somewhat. 

The Declaration of Independence, proclaiming the in- 
herent rights of man as an individual, liberated aspira- 
tions in the collective mind that had been struggling for 
expression during all the preceding ages. To overcome 
the mental torpor and inertia common to the masses of 
the people, caused by centuries of oppression, ignorance 
and degradation, was an almost insuperable task. Out- 
side of France and England the process was very slow, 
and in many countries is scarcely even commenced yet. 
In Germany the movement has been an utter failure, even 
up to the present hour. What the future may bring forth 
there is another question. In Italy much progress has 
been made. In Russia the great mass of the people never 
awoke and are not awake even now. 

At first, the social unrest manifested itself in efforts 
for political freedom. If, it was asserted, men were but 
free politically, the millennium would be but a short dis- 
tance away. Now, it is as confidently asserted, political 
freedom is not what is needed, but "Freedom from wage 



slavery"; and Ibsen's "Intrepid Minority," 1 offers that 
to the world, in the name of Liberty, Socialism or Com- 
munism, according to its application, whether national 
or local. 

However much one may affect to despise the material 
well-being of man, next to religion, it has been and 
ever will be the world's great motive force. Hence, out- 
side of religious uprisings, all popular rebellions can be 
related to some cause connected with the public or pri- 
vate material well-being. The average man has never 
been an idealist. He has never desired political freedom 
for itself — always, on the contrary, for what material ben- 
efits he expected it would bring him. Of course, it is true 
that man's spiritual and material welfare are curiously 
and inextricably interwoven. Still, whatever visions his 
leaders may have had, man in the mass has ever kept his 
feet planted firmly on the ground ; has never contemplated 
beautiful theories nor walked with his head among the 
stars. The noblest chapters in history — those chapters 
that have to tell of the greatest moral successes — have 
always been written by practical men, working in a 
practical way. Although our own Kevolution was justi- 
fied to the world in the high idealism of the Declaration, 
yet in the background there looms significantly the "Bos- 
ton Tea Party." So, today, the causes of the social un- 
rest are economic rather than political. There is nothing 
about this fact that should cause anyone to despair of 
mankind. On the contrary, it should arouse the liveliest 
hope. Man's political and mental advancement have al- 
ways gone hand in hand with his financial betterment. 
Cunningham 2 points out that sufficient stress has not been 
laid upon the wonderful impetus the cause of human 
freedom was given when money economy superseded bar- 



gee Appendix IV for References. 

6 



ter. The possession of money made man free, in fact. 
It enabled him to cast off the shackles that bound him 
to one spot. It offered him the world in which to move. 
This fact is understood by men generally, although but 
vaguely, and they will not submit peaceably to any sys- 
tem that deprives them of a reasonable share of that which 
secures them their freedom. 

Hence, to repeat, popular rebellions are always justly 
and naturally waged over some question affecting the pri- 
vate pocket-book. Today, the workers feel that they 
are not receiving a just share of the fruits of their toil. 
They are convinced, too, that they have not a reasonably 
potent voice in the management of industry which their 
labor has so materially aided to develop. Into these two 
chief causes all the present unrest resolves itself. It 
needs but a superficial survey of the industrial situation 
to see that the cause of the workers is sound, and that 
justice demands that our present system be overhauled. 
It must be obvious to all, except those creatures of privi- 
lege who, like the Bourbons, never learn anything, that 
things cannot continue much longer as they are. 

In attempting to find a solution for the problems in- 
volved in the present industrial evils, all reformers seem 
to have taken it for granted that through some form of 
Collective Effort the industrial millennium will be reached. 
Thus, there have been offered to us, Socialism, Com- 
munism, the Soviet System, Syndicalism, and many modi- 
fications of these — all of which are based, without ex- 
ception, upon the theory of Collective Effort. 



SECTION 2. 

Collective Effort in the Past. 

Collective Effort takes place whenever any number of 
men are associated together, either voluntarily or invol- 
untarily, for the purpose of accomplishing something that 
presents difficulties too great, apparently, for any one, or 
all of them acting individually, to overcome. It can be 
divided into three classes: that which is imposed upon 
the people by a higher power ; that which the people im- 
pose upon themselves; and human slavery. The first 
comprises the activities of an autocracy or oligarchy ; the 
second, those naturally evolved by primitive peoples, of 
corporations, labor unions, co-operative societies, etc., and 
the procedures followed in the conduct of war by free 
peoples — procedures the socialists would have us adopt 
in carrying on the business of every-day life; and third, 
human slavery, which has prevailed under every form of 
government that ever existed, and may belong to either 
the first or second class. Slavery was superimposed, as 
in case of- prisoners of war that in ancient times were 
almost invariably sold at auction, or apportioned among 
their conquerors, and of African slavery; and self-im- 
posed, as when in the republics of Greece and Rome the 
law decreed that insolvent freemen debtors should be 
either surrendered to their creditors or sold at public 
auction, and permitted pauper freemen voluntarily to cast 
themselves into servitude. 

It is difficult for the student of history to understand 
the confidence of the present-day reformers in the benefi- 
cence of Collective Effort. There is nothing novel about 



it. Communism, in some form, was practiced by every 
nation of antiquity and the middle ages. One meets with 
it at the dawn of history — a fact that distinctly shows 
that it is much older than history. Indeed, it is much 
older than man himself. All gregarious animals instinct- 
ively conduct the affairs of every-day life upon prin- 
ciples that are fundamentally communistic. Protection 
and the search for food are the concern of all. The buf- 
faloes that formerly roamed over the great plains in 
such vast numbers, lived under such a dispensation. The 
search for food was conducted by the herd in a body, 
which marched with front, rear and flank guards. When 
food was found, a small portion of the herd stood guard, 
while the main body eased its hunger. 3 The monkeys in 
Africa today live under similar arrangements. 

Primitive man, also, regulated the current business of 
life under a system of Collective Effort. Our wild Indians 
were rough-going communists. A tribe would, through 
war and conquest, win the right to roam over a certain 
stretch of territory. This territory would be the prop- 
erty of the tribe as a whole — no one individual of the 
tribe, nor any collection of individuals of it, would own 
a foot of the soil. "When game became scarce in the 
vicinity, the tribal camp was moved to a new locality, 
chosen after an examination had been made by the scouts. 
When game had been discovered, the hunt was organized 
by tribal officers, according to fixed usage and custom. 4 
Each hunter was entitled to carry to his tepee, by the 
labor of his squaws, the game he had killed. 5 Once the 
game was in his pot, however, any member of the 
tribe was at liberty to help himself — guests being 
expected to serve themselves first, and with the choicest 
portions. The Indian owned nothing individually except 
his squaws, tepee, horses, domestic utensils, clothing and 
weapons. Among those tribes that had made some little 



progress in agriculture, individuals were allotted certain 
portions of the tribal soil for personal cultivation, but 
personal hoarding was not allowed nor even thought of. 
The more fortunate ones shared with their less fortunate 
neighbors. The result was that the Indian was a lazy and 
improvident being. His life vibrated between seasons of 
plenty and of scarcity. The latter part of every winter 
generally found the inhabitants of an Indian camp on the 
border of starvation, if not actually in a starving con- 
dition. 6 Still, however, the conditions of Indian life 
were such that probably nothing better could have been 
evolved. 

History dawned in Egypt 7 and we find there a system 
of Collective Effort based upon an absolute monarchy, 
tempered more or less by gross superstition, that in con- 
ception owned all the soil. Although slavery flourished, 
the great mass of the Egyptians were small peasant pro- 
prietors who paid, in kind, a certain tax or rent for the 
land they cultivated. In addition to this land rent they 
were also required to pay in kind a tax for the use of 
water, brought to their holdings by vast systems of irriga- 
tion that covered the whole country. While, theoretically, 
the Egyptian peasant was free, he practically was no 
better off than a slave for the reason that the earnings of 
his small holdings very seldom were more than sufficient 
to enable him to pay his taxes and sustain himself and 
family. From birth to death he was tied to the paternal 
holding which he inherited at the death of his father, 
except when his round of daily toil was varied by an 
enforced trip to some great public work, such as the 
Pyramids for instance, where he performed his work 
under the lash of a task master — work an arrears in taxes 
sometimes entailed upon him, 8 although he was com- 
monly forced, at the command of the Government, to 
work without compensation. 

10 



After Moses, there was some chance among the Jews 
for the individual to secure a foothold. Although the 
land was theoretically owned by the state, in practice 
it was allotted to small proprietors under a rotative own- 
ership that allowed no one proprietor to hold his land for 
a longer period than forty-nine years. 9 This system pre- 
vented the formation of a land monopoly, but it operated 
to drive the more aggressive and enterprising men into 
trade. Although the Government, especially under Solo- 
mon, traded on its own account, trading by individuals 
was tolerated ; and as by that time money was in circula- 
tion, it flourished. The laws of Moses also affected, very 
intimately, the individual, and recognized his rights. 
Democracy prevailed among them to a degree. For a 
time Jewish rulers were elected by vote of the various 
tribes — a system that was voluntarily overthrown against 
the advice of their wisest prophet, and a kingly rule 
substituted. 10 

Judging all nations by the degree of respectability at- 
tained by the great mass of individuals, under their va- 
rious ideals, the Jews present the most edifying spectacle 
of any nation of antiquity. Of course, it must be admitted 
that a large measure of this respectability must be cred- 
ited to the worship of "The One True God." 

Phoenicia 11 presents to the world the sorry spectacle of 
a nation absolutely devoted to the amassing of money, 
with no conflicting or qualifying ideals whatsoever. Its 
government was an absolute monarchy, modified by the 
personal washes of a few noblemen who were possessed 
of all the wealth of the country, and who exploited dis- 
tant regions absolutely in their own interests. Slavery 
flourished among them to a greater degree than any 
other nation, except perhaps Rome — although, of course, 
there were freemen. If a poor freeman, however, pre- 
served his freedom throughout his life, he could consider 

11 



that lie had not spent his life in vain, even though it 
offered little or nothing to him. 12 No individual had, as 
such, any scope for development in Tyre or Sidon. 13 The 
Phoenician business man, however, was very clever, and 
understood money economy thoroughly, and many of the 
various operations necessary to the efficient conduct of 
commercial affairs. As might be expected in a nation 
devoted absolutely to money-making, the Phoenicians 
bought what they needed when they needed it, and, hence, 
war was always conducted by mercenary soldiers. 

Phoenicia offers a most striking instance of the in- 
herent iniquity of superimposed Collective Effort. All 
the resources of the nation — its wealth, its physical re- 
sources, as well as nearly all of its inhabitants — were at 
the absolute disposal of a very few men that exploited 
them for their own personal gain. 

In Greece 14 the basis of industry was slavery, as it was 
in all the other nations of antiquity. The Greeks were 
good business men, but in distinction to the Phoenicians, 
they aimed to colonize and settle the distant regions that 
their adventurers explored, instead of exploiting them. 
Thus, every Greek colony, no matter how remote from 
the Motherland, became a center for the dissemination 
of Greek culture. The Greeks loved money, but they 
loved it merely as a means for obtaining the leisure neces- 
sary to acquire culture. However, this leisure was, of 
course, for the few. The great mass of the Greeks spent 
their lives in unrequited or illy paid toil. In Athens, 
where Grecian ideals reached their highest development, 
the trading classes got possession of the government and 
secured the passage of laws designed for their own spe- 
cial benefit. Among these laws was one which prohibited 
the exportation of wheat but permitted its importation, 
so that the laboring classes could obtain cheap bread — an 
arrangement that brought the Athenian peasant in direct 

12 



competition with the slave labor of Egypt and elsewhere. 
The peasant was forced to sell his land to a landlord and 
find his way to the city, where he became a* -member of 
the Athenian mob. Huge landed estates were thus formed 
that were worked by large gangs of slaves, and while not 
producing a profit, were self-sustaining. 

The Athenians understood the principle of joint stock 
companies, and engaged in various similar forms of Col- 
lective Effort, such as, for instance, bottomry. 

The Greeks attempted government ownership in sev- 
eral lines of industry. The silver mines of Larium were 
owned by the state, but were leased to contractors and 
operated by slaves. 15 The state, however, exercised no 
supervision over its property, and the slaves in the Larium 
silver mines repeatedly revolted, and on one occasion went 
over to the Spartans, who were at that time besieging 
the city, with the result that the Athenians were defeated. 

Eome was ruled by Kings in her early years, but in 
509 B. C. the monarchy was abolished and a republic 
established that lasted for more than 450 years. It was 
aristocratic in essence at first, but gradually the common 
people came to have a very substantial measure of power. 
Rome had, apparently, no conscious ideals, such as marked 
the Athenians, and began her career of conquest more 
through force of circumstances than design. 16 Her geo- 
graphical situation was such that she was forced to fight 
from the outset for her very existence. In these small 
tribal wars she was successful — a result that must be 
credited to the strict discipline of family life that ob- 
tained in the early and formative years of the republic, 17 
by reason of which the average Roman was frugal, ab- 
stemious and used to rough fare and plain living. 

Her world history really began at the close of the sec- 
ond Punic war. From then until the downfall, her career 
was marked first, by wars either of defense or aggression, 

13 



and lastly by bitter strife of political parties and class 
struggles that led often to the temporary cessation of 
constitutional government. The central authority re- 
laxed, and dictators took the reins of power. The indus- 
trial economy of Italy changed. The peasant proprietors 
were no longer able to make a living, and their holdings 
were merged into large estates that were cultivated by 
gangs of slaves. The peasants themselves were either 
forced into slavery through debt, or to congregate in the 
cities, notably Eome, where they joined the great urban 
mobs that had to be fed, clothed and amused at public 
expense. The supply of slaves ran out, and the demand 
for more became acute. Expeditions were organized for 
the conquest and plunder of distant territories and to 
secure slaves. Luxury, resulting from contact with 
Greece, after her conquest, and the Orient, became greater 
and greater. 18 

Accompanying every military expedition were the 
"Tax Farmers'' — contractors — who, for the privilege of 
collecting the taxes of conquered provinces for their own 
personal benefit, or that of the stock companies they rep- 
resented, agreed to return to the state specified sums. 19 
These men, after a few years' absence in the Far East 
or elsewhere, almost invariably returned to Rome with 
fabulous fortunes, gained not only through farming the 
taxes, but through plundering the conquered provinces in 
other ways. The fame of these aroused active emula- 
tion. Everybody began to lust after easily and quickly 
acquired riches. "Get rich quick" became the slogan of 
Roman life. The old ways of gaining a living were for- 
saken, and everyone hastened to obtain an income suffi- 
cient to support him in idleness. The good old Roman 
habits of thrift, frugality and plain, rough living, gave 
way to gluttony, sensuality and inordinate display. 20 A 
mania for speculation seized all classes. Everyone wanted 

14 



a share in the exploitation of some distant province. Joint 
stock companies were formed to meet the popular demand. 
Rome became a huge stock-gambling hell, with the Forum 
as its center. 21 The Senate, the Central Authority of the 
state, became corrupt. Its members, depending upon 
their hereditary estates to support their generally austere, 
frugal manner of living, found themselves swamped by 
the ever increasing cost of things. Their pride was 
humbled by the unheard of luxury with which the Nou- 
veaux riches surrounded themselves; and in a sort of 
self-defense, the Senatorial clique was forced to become 
money-hunters or else to seek a refuge in retirement. 22 
The increasing cost of living brought increasing pov- 
erty in its train, and the money-lenders flourished. 23 Rival 
politicians quarreled over the question of power until 
finally the state was ruined. Collective Effort, through 
its centralizing tendencies, had done its work. 24 The 
individual citizen who had formed the legions that con- 
quered the world, was crushed ; the spirit of Liberty died 
out, and Caesar ruled. 

The career of Rome furnishes the most striking illus- 
tration in history of the evils of Collective Effort. It 
started in a small way, and its citizens were, for the most 
part, small peasant proprietors, free and independent. 
The state, however, protected and encouraged the institu- 
tion of human slavery — an institution that exterminated 
the peasant proprietor. With the fall of the peasant pro- 
prietor and his disappearance into the ranks of the un- 
employed, a great feeding and housing problem was 
evolved. The mob also had to be amused. The state 
had to have more money and land. Exploitation of dis- 
tant regions afforded apparently the only relief. The 
state, therefore, in order to encourage distant ventures, 
was forced to divide its plunder with those of its citizens 
daring enough to undertake them. Collective Effort, in 

15 



the form of joint stock companies, was resorted to, in 
order to afford those at home a share. Collective Effort, 
manifested in slavery, destroyed the peasant farmer, and 
the price of grain rose, for any form of Collective Effort 
is, in the end, far more costly than individual effort. The 
owners of large estates worked by gangs of Italian slaves, 
could not compete with the Egyptian and Sicilian wheat, 
grown by slaves whose keep was considerably less. More 
slaves merely added to the burden, and the cost of living 
was still further increased. Exploitation of the prov- 
inces made matters still worse by introducing an in- 
ordinate and necessarily most expensive luxury, and the 
joint stock companies completed the work of destruction 
by demoralizing the national mind through ill-gotten 
riches made without work. The same fate will overtake 
any people when the great mass of its individuals decide 
that they will cease each one to work for himself, and to 
gain, through concerted effort of some sort, an easy living 
with little or no work. 

Under the Eoman Empire the work of crushing the 
individual continued with increasing swiftness and cer- 
tainty. Taxes, forced labor, galling restrictions, and lack 
of representation or voice in administration, so completely 
destroyed his resistive qualities that he became, at length, 
unfit to be a soldier, and the state was forced to depend 
upon mercenaries — a practice that caused the downfall of 
Kome in the west. 25 

Organizations among the free workers, and the slaves 
as well, are found to exist all through antiquity. 26 The 
trade unions are said to date from the time of Numa 
Pompilius, who is supposed to have divided all the various 
workers into crafts or gilds, similar in essentials to the 
craft and trade gilds of the Middle Ages. These various 
crafts secured monopolies in their various callings; for 
instance, the armourers had a monopoly in providing the 
Roman state with munitions of war, and at one time, dur- 

16 



ing a slave uprising, numbers of them joined the in- 
surgents and supplied them with arms. 27 The sailors 
controlled the transportation business of the Roman Re- 
public. The butchers had a monopoly in the supply of 
meat; but monopoly resulted in antiquity the same as it 
has today — that is, in extortion and profiteering. Julius 
Caesar, when he became Dictator of the Roman Republic, 
suppressed some of these organizations in the public in- 
terest. 28 Caesar, as must be remembered, was the leader 
of the Roman Democracy in its fight against the Senate, 
the citadel of privilege in that day. 29 

The great economic triumph of the Christian religion 
is to be found in its conception of the inherent dignity and 
nobility of manual labor. Until Christ's time, manual 
labor was looked upon as disgraceful, and fit only to be 
performed by slaves. Christ's teachings have removed 
the stain from labor, and today it is the idle man who is 
disgraced, and not the one who works. Neither can hu- 
man slavery exist in any mental atmosphere that is per- 
meated with the true spirit of Christianity. 

By the close of the fifth century paganism had largely 
disappeared, everywhere. Christianity had supplanted 
it. 30 In a little over half a century thereafter, the Roman 
Empire in the "West had disappeared also. Then there 
were many peasant proprietors. This condition (that is, 
of large masses of freemen) had always obtained among 
the Celtic and Germanic tribes; but of this, more here- 
after. Charlemagne's armies were composed entirely of 
freemen. 31 

But Collective Effort was still necessary, if the work 
of eyery-day life was to be performed. Christianity found 
the world degraded and enslaved in body and mind. It 
found the few living in idleness through the unrequited 
toil of the many. It found the idea prevalent that labor 
was disgraceful, although there were very few that were 
not thus disgraced. This awful idea, a natural result 

17 



wherever slavery is found, the Church set out to correct, 
and it succeeded. In accomplishing this, the Church was 
obliged to make itself the center of a vast system of Col- 
lective Effort. The monastical establishments that dotted 
Europe everywhere, with their large cultivated areas, 
tilled by men sworn to lives of poverty, obedience and 
severe manual toil, had at first an immeasurable effect in 
ennobling labor, and setting a good example in sobriety 
and thrift to the natives of the regions in which they were 
located. 32 

The Middle Ages were, however, a period of flux. With 
the removal of the strong arm of the Roman Empire, it 
seemed as though Europe would never again follow the 
paths of peace and order. General wars gave place to 
private strife, and vice versa. In the midst of the gen- 
eral turmoil, the feudal system came into being, and city 
life revived again, which gave opportunity for the rise 
of the trade gilds. The feudal system, 33 if it can be 
called a system, it varied so greatly in various places, 
offered protection to the lowly at the cost of their liberty 
A poor freeman, living near a powerful lord, despairing 
of protecting himself from the encroachment of some 
other lord, or possibly of the lord himself, would "com- 
mend himself " to the lord; that is, would surrender him- 
self and all his possessions into the lord's hands, or agree 
to perform certain stipulated services for the lord — 
maybe lend him military aid on occasion, or till his fields, 
or furnish him with provisions; and in return therefor, 
would receive the lord's promise of protection at all times. 
The lord was under similar bonds to someone higher than 
himself — to the sovereign, maybe, or to some more power- 
ful lord. Theoretically, everyone but the king had his 
lord, and even kings held possession in foreign lands under 
the lordship of the local sovereign. At the base of this 
structure were found the great mass of the people, known 
as serfs (prisoners of war and their descendants) or 

is 



villains, who were attached as appendages to the soil 
upon which they were born. This was the theory of the 
system, 34 but fortunately for the cause of human liberty, 
this system was never evolved anywhere exactly in ac- 
cordance with its theory. If it had been, this unique sys- 
tem of Collective Effort would have swept freedom from 
the earth. There were many small free peasant proprie- 
tors, and the inhabitants of the cities, that were constantly 
increasing in size as trade began to grow, were largely 
freemen. 35 

In the face of threatened or immediate danger, men 
always instinctively turn to each other for protection. In 
organization the individual finds safety. Hence, the citi- 
zens of the mediaeval cities found it necessary to organ- 
ize themselves into institutions known as trade and craft 
gilds. These gilds were, to a large extent, to the city 
what the feudal system was to the country. 36 They of- 
fered that protection to the tradesman and craftsman 
against oppression and tyranny that he could get in no 
other way. They also enabled their members to secure a 
monopoly in their several trades or crafts. Membership 
in some trade or craft became a compulsory matter, if one 
were to pursue the business or occupation involved ; and 
when once his choice of a calling were made, he was forced, 
generally, to follow it for life. As the feudal system came 
into being naturally, so the trade or craft gilds sprang 
to life spontaneously. The Government was forced soon 
to recognize them, however, and they became regularly 
chartered — a procedure that had the effect somewhat of 
extending governmental protection to monopoly — a privi- 
lege that was often abused. In their operations, however, 
they displayed the same tendencies monopoly always does, 
and through their exactions they gained the bitter hatred 
of the citizens generally. 87 

For a time they were very powerful, but privilege 
always destroys itself. The king and parliament in- 

19 



tervened and they were made subject to the municipal 
authorities of the various towns in w ; hich they were lo- 
cated, although there were exceptions to this general 
rule. Conspiracy to raise prices or curtail production 
were severely punished. Over their own members, how- 
ever, the power of the trade and craft gilds was abso- 
lute. The power "to strike" was denied the workers 
and the individual caught in their toils was, to all prac- 
tical purposes, enslaved. 

We of today, with our modern systems of transporta- 
tion, who think nothing of a journey of a thousand or 
more miles, cannot understand the narrow, provincial life 
in the Middle Ages of the great majority of people. It is 
true, of course, that there was considerable traveling done 
by merchants and traders, by priests and pilgrims; and 
during the latter part of the Middle Ages the Crusades 
attracted large numbers of people to the Holy Land. The 
great mass of the people, however, moved about but little, 
and there was scarcely any opportunity for interurban 
trade. Hence, a craft or trade gild in one city would 
monopolize all the business in a certain calling, with lit- 
tle or no possibility of competition from the outside. 38 

In mediaeval times, therefore, we find all activity or- 
ganized on the basis of "Collective Effort," with freedom 
for the masses distinctly lacking. The great masses of 
individuals had but little more scope for personal activity 
than had the slaves of ancient Kome. The theory that all 
were working for the state, and not for themselves," pre- 
vailed in full vigor, and all individual aspiration was, as 
a matter of public policy, suppressed, 39 to a large extent. 

The revival of learning, followed immediately by the 
tremendous expansion of trade that resulted from the dis- 
covery of America, destroyed the craft and trade gilds, as 
well as the feudal system. They came into collision with 
the capitalistic system of production, and could not make 

headway against it. 40 

20 



SECTION 3. 

Collective Effort in the Present. 

The present epoch begins with the era of invention in 
England. The discovery of a method of applying steam 
for generating power, and the invention of a machine 
capable of spinning cotton and wool, effected the greatest 
industrial revolution that the world has ever known. 
Under the system that prevailed previous to the appli- 
cation of these inventions, the workers, in most instances, 
lived in their own homes, where they performed their 
labor, and had time for the cultivation of small patches of 
ground, whose produce enabled them to eke out a scanty 
income. The inventions mentioned, however, brought 
into existence the factory system, which attracted the 
workers to the larger towns. They were compelled to 
give up their own homes, and no longer had the oppor- 
unity for gardening and small farming. 

Great evils resulted from this change. In the old days, 
an entire family would be engaged in the weaving of cloth 
at intervals during each working day. There was prob- 
ably no severe discipline, nor any long hours of sustained 
toil, 41 except in isolated cases. Undoubtedly, the workers 
performed their tasks as they chose. 

Under the factory system, however, all this was 
changed. Fixed hours of labor were established. In 
mediaeval times industry was hedged about by restric- 
tions that protected the worker as to his wages, although 
he was denied the right to "strike." An entire change 
came over the national thought, due to the teachings of 
the Political Economists. The cry went up, "Let us 

21 



alone/ ' and the policy of Laissez faire was adopted, 
which placed the workers absolutely at the mercy of their 
employers, with the result that there was less opportunity 
for individual development among them than there had 
been, even during the Middle Ages. For a time it seemed 
as though the physical integrity of the English race would 
be destroyed. Child labor had always been common, but 
under the factory system its inherent evils became mag- 
nified many -fold. The housing conditions of the workers 
became horrible. These conditions were changed after 
a time, by Parliament, but only after years of agitation. 42 

As has been remarked before, there were joint stock 
companies in existence during antiquity. There were 
also corporations in the Middle Ages, but these were de- 
voted more to ecclesiastical, charitable and municipal 
purposes than to industry, although the trade and craft 
gilds were corporations in essence. 43 

The application of the principle of incorporation, to con- 
cerns organized for private profit, was known, however, 
and was used in the later exploration and early coloniza- 
tion of North America, and to the development of foreign 
trade generally. 44 Such work, of course, was a benefit to 
the Government, and these companies were regarded as 
public enterprises, undertaken as much for public good 
as for private gain. Prominent among the companies 
organized for exploration were, the Hudson Bay Com- 
pany, The Company and Adventurers of Massachusetts 
Bay, The Virginia Company, and John Law's Mississippi 
Company in France. 

Shortly after the commencement, however, of the in- 
dustrial revolution, the idea of incorporated associations 
of men, for private profit merely, began to take root. 45 It 
was found that there were limitations to what an indi- 
vidual could accomplish in industry, and furthermore, 
that he was absolutely at the mercy of his creditors, but 

23 



entrenched behind a corporation, on the other hand ; his 
personal property was never in jeopardy, Such an insti- 
tution was also found to be a far more flexible instrument 
in prosecuting industry than an individual could ever 
hope to be, so the corporations throve. 

The Industrial Revolution of the United States can be 
considered as having taken place with the passage of 
the Tariff Act of 1828. 46 At that time it was decided to 
adopt the policy of encouraging and developing American 
industry by means of a protective tariff. Hamilton had 
advocated this policy, but Jefferson and his followers 
opposed it. A short time subsequent to the War of 1812, 
it was tried out along certain specific lines, and found 
to be very beneficial to the manufacturing interests, A 
concerted movement took place among American manu- 
facturers for the adoption of this policy, and it succeeded. 

In 1800, what few corporations there were in the coun- 
try were engaged in banking and commerce. After the 
Industrial Revolution, however, the principle of incor- 
poration began to be applied here just as it was in Eng- 
land, although the corporations never aroused much alarm 
until after our Civil War. The gigantic expansions of 
these institutions is well known. Today they control 
practically the entire industry of the country. There are 
very few individuals conducting businesses of any size 
in the country today. 

In England, the workers organized themselves into 
unions almost as soon as the factory system had got 
well started, but they were suppressed by means of a 
law, passed during the Middle Ages, that prohibited or- 
ganizations of the workers. These institutions continued 
to exist secretly, and about 1820 were publicly recognized. 
Since that time, the trade union movement of England has 
continued to expand, until practically all the workers of 

23 



the United Kingdom are members of some labor organi- 
zation. 47 

The condition of the laboring men, even that of skilled 
mechanics and artisans, in the United States at the time 
of the formation of the Government, was deplorable. The 
laboring man worked from sunrise to sunset, and put in, 
all told, an average of nearly thirteen hours per day. The 
daily wage was a mere pittance, and even that was not 
paid regularly, or always in good money. Often, he was 
cheated out of it entirely, as there were no Mechanic's 
Lien Laws in those days. He was poorly fed, clad and 
housed. In 1791, the carpenters of Philadelphia went 
on the first strike in our history, and demanded a ten- 
hour day and better wages. This effort was not success- 
ful, nor was any change secured for forty years there- 
after. 

In 1825, the labor union movement in the United States 
really began. 48 The workers began to bestir themselves, 
for the increasing prosperity of the country caused a 
corresponding rise in the cost of living, which bore heav- 
ily on the poor, whose wages had not been proportionately 
increased. LTnions of the workers were formed in Massa- 
chusetts and elsewhere, and secured beneficial results. 
In New York a " Mechanic's Lien Law" was put through 
the legislature. In Pennsylvania, a labor party was or- 
ganized that attempted to reform the school system, or 
rather to force the adoption of one. 49 But not until after 
the Civil War did Labor, as known today, become a power. 

The so-called Russian Soviet System is simply the ap- 
plication to an entire country of the old principle involved 
in the craft or trade gild. It seeks to give a monopoly 
to the workers in any particular craft or trade, of all the 
business of that craft or trade. Given an opportunity to 
get into active operation, it would produce the same evils 
to the public which were generally complained of in 

24 



mediaeval cities under the craft and trade gilds. 50 Monop- 
oly works the same everywhere, under all conditions, but 
up to this time the general public has had an opportunity 
for redress. 

Under the Soviet System, with the workers of the coun- 
try controlling all the various branches of industry, the 
public would have no possible chance for redress. Even 
the workers in one trade would have no protection against 
those of another trade, except through violence. What 
this would mean can be left to the imagination. 

In reality, Eussia, in point of progress, has just about 
reached the position occupied by England in 1000 A. D. 
A thin veneer of modernity has, of course, been spread 
over the land to some extent, and western industry has 
been introduced somewhat; but these are in no sense 
indigenous. The great mass of the people are small peas- 
ant proprietors, living in little villages, conducting their 
communal affairs very much as similar bodies of English 
men did just before "The Conquest." There is this 
difference, however : that whereas the great mass of Eng- 
lishmen had always been theoretically free, the bulk of 
the Russians are not more than sixty years removed from 
serfdom. 

Of recent years, Russian College students and profes- 
sional men and women have been very active intellectu- 
ally, in which the idlers have participated to some extent ; 
but the results of this activity are what might be ex- 
pected from persons long subjected to mental and polit- 
ical repression. "While it is sometimes brilliant, it is, 
for the most part, crude, wild, doctrinaire and mor- 
bid. When it deals with liberty, it is especially absurd. 
It seriously proposes to introduce a reign of freedom 
by substituting for an autocracy imposed from above, 
an autocracy imposed, not by all the people, but by 
a single class of the people. It proposes to force the 

25 



Russian people to progress by leveling them all down to 
the standard of its lowest class. The Russian M intellect- 
uals,' ' so-called, do not yet understand that by recog- 
nizing class distinctions, they have made political prog- 
ress impossible. It is only through ignoring class dis- 
tinctions that a people progresses politically. 

Absurd as it is, there are some persons who seriously 
believe that America has something to learn from current 
Russian experiments. Indeed, there are a few who pro- 
pose that we apply them to our own problems. Could 
folly go any farther? 

What can a horde of illiterates whose general condi- 
tion from time immemorial until very recently has been 
somewhat worse than that of their own cattle, herded and 
driven at this present moment by a few educated fanatics, 
maddened by past years of persecution and oppression, 
teach us, whose land has been the home of liberty for three 
hundred years? 

The Russian Soviet government represents the swing 
of the pendulum. The autocracy has passed from the 
monarchy into the keeping of a handful of doctrinaires 
who claim to represent the proletariat. They rule by 
force just as Nicholas did, and do not represent the Rus- 
sian people any more than he did. The Russian people 
today, under the present regime, have no more to say 
about their government than they had in the days of 
Peter the Great. 

It is possible, in view of the almost universal illiteracy, 
mental inertia and total governmental inexperience, that 
such a government is a present necessity, but that it repre- 
sents liberty in any form, or that from its performances 
any free people can derive anything useful to themselves, 
is the quintessence of foolishness. 

As remarked above, the Russians are a primitive peo- 
ple, very primitive, to be exa^t (our wild Indians could 

26 



have taught them much about freedom and individual self- 
government) and there has been evolved for them, not 
by them, a government suited, maybe, to their present 
benighted condition. 

Even if their present government is a necessity for a 
time, and that is very doubtful, it will not be so long. The 
Eussian people will eventually find themselves and assert, 
successfully, the right to rule, which is just as inherent 
in them as it is in any other race. 

The confidence of ignorant fanaticism is a most curious 
thing. It can be compared only to the confidence of 
youth. Russian nihilists, anarchists, "intellectuals" and 
socialists are full of this false courage. Even when their 
own country was governed by the most unenlightened, 
oppressive and brutal government that ever existed, these 
"reformers" never hesitated to tell Western Europe and 
America what liberty meant, and were listened to with 
respectful attention by numbers of people who should 
have known better. For a time, the sight of these crea- 
tures, devoid of even the slightest knowledge of the prac- 
tical workings of liberty and self-government, often 
obliged to flee their own country in disguise to evade 
death or Siberia, running about the United States lectur- 
ing to us, who have always been free, about freedom, was 
one of the hugest jokes of history. 

Lately, however, the humorous features of this mon- 
strous propaganda have disappeared. Unable to convince 
even a respectable minority of the soundness of their 
doctrines, they now advise violence and propose to their 
followers that they take by force what they have lost 
hope of getting through the ballot box. They must be 
sent back to the land they came from. Let them there 
first successfully apply their theories to the actual prob- 
lems of life, before they tell the rest of the world how 
beneficent they are. 

27 



In deporting persons who come to our shores with no 
intention of conforming themselves either to the letter 
or the spirit of our laws and institutions, who use their 
new-found freedom as a cloak beneath which to plot and 
conspire against the hand that has given them protec- 
tion, the government is in nowise departing from the coun- 
try 's traditional policy of offering an "asylum to the 
oppressed. ' ' When we offered a haven, here, to the down- 
trodden of the world, it was with the implied stipulation 
that those who availed themselves of our kindness would 
appreciate the opportunities we were conferring upon 
them, and take up their residence among us with the in- 
tention of obeying our laws and becoming American citi- 
zens. We give to aliens no greater latitude in rendering 
obedience to the laws than to our own citizens. If a 
citizen enters into a conspiracy to overthrow law and 
order, and is apprehended, the government has the right 
to deprive him of his liberty, or even, in time of war, 
to put him to death. 

It derives this right from the law of self-preservation 
which is as insistent upon an organization, or a system, as 
upon an individual. 

In suffering mere deportation, aliens are getting much 
lighter sentences than they deserve, or than citizens would 
receive were they convicted of similar offences. 

Our rights, of course, are inherent in us, but we secure 
them through the Constitution. Without that instrument 
or a similar one, our inherent rights would be of no use 
to us. The rights the "radicals' ' propose to secure 
through overthrowing the Constitution are totally differ- 
ent from the rights we possess and enjoy, theoretically, 
today. Under the Constitution, we possess the rights of 
men. Under "radicalism" we would merely possess the 
rights of slaves and domestic animals. 

Of course, the right to rebel is inherent in man, if he 

28 



wishes to exercise it, but there is also inherent in the 
premises the corresponding obligation to take what he 
gets, if he fails. The "fathers" were under no misconcep- 
tion about this. Said Franklin, at the signing of the 
11 Declaration, " "We must all hang together, or assuredly 
we shall all hang separately." 

How far, too, an individual may go in his exercise of 
the right of free speech, rests with the majority, to a very 
considerable extent. No one should ever expect to run 
at right angles to the public opinion of his age, and escape 
unscathed. 

The State of North Dakota has lately embarked upon a 
scheme of Collective Effort. If it hadn't made a Land 
Bank a part of this effort, it might have achieved con- 
siderable temporary success. There is no reason why a 
state-owned and operated elevator or twine factory 
shouldn't at least pay expenses for a time, although such 
institutions can never be permanently successful when 
brought into competition with similar concerns conducted 
by corporations or private individuals. The farther in- 
dustry is removed from individual control or operation, 
the more expensive it becomes. (See Section 7.) 

The Land Bank features of the scheme, however, insure 
its certain and speedy failure. The very first pinch in 
the money market will probably end the bank, and with 
it the whole affair. It may last as long as the Non-Par- 
tisan League, but no longer. 

A Land Bank is no new thing. Ehode Island experi- 
mented with one just after the close of the Kevolutionary 
War, 51 but there is no Land Bank in Ehode Island today, 
nor has there been for upwards of a century and a quar- 
ter. That fact alone should be sufficiently illuminative of 
what will happen in North Dakota. There will be no Land 
Bank in North Dakota ten years from now. What North 
Dakota should have done was to repeal her laws 

29 



allowing the incorporation of elevator companies, and 
made it impossible for foreign elevator companies to 
operate within her borders. This would have thrown 
the elevator business into the hands of private indi- 
viduals, and the troubles of the North Dakota farmers 
over the elevator question would have been forever re- 
moved. Only by definitely fixing the seat of responsibility 
for the operation of an institution can the general public 
assure itself that its rights relative to it will be pro- 
tected. 



30 



SECTION 4. 

Socialism. 

Socialism, or Communism, its twin brother, as a theory 
or rather as a dream, has been advocated for centuries. 
Carl Marx, however, reduced this theory to a system he 
thought susceptible to practical application in the af- 
fairs of every-day life. His theory is, in substance, that 
Labor creates all wealth, and hence all wealth belongs 
to it ; that the employers, by appropriating to themselves 
the surplus 52 that is left after paying the laborers' wages, 
etc., have defrauded the workers out of what is their due, 
and have fastened down upon the world the pernicious 
system of Capitalism ; or in other words, Capitalism simply 
exploits the worker. In order to overcome this condi- 
tion, and secure to the workers their due, he proposed 
that all industry should be owned, operated and con- 
trolled by the state in the interests of all the people. 53 

Such a scheme could never have been evolved by free 
men or by men who had any conception of Liberty. It 
means nothing more or less than the autocracy of the 
masses over all, including themselves. It is not surprising 
that such an idea should first see the light in Germany. 
Accustomed for centuries to being ruled by force, Marx 
and his followers had no conception of any different form 
of government. The keen satisfaction a free man takes 
in his liberty, no matter how poor he may be, had been 
denied to them and their forefathers for a thousand years 
or more. A dictatorship had no terrors for them, for 
they were living under one, and a dictatorship of them- 
selves and their fellows could not be any worse, and would 

31 



probably be much better than the one they were living 
under. Freedom meant nothing to them, for they had 
never been free. 

Today, however, we are assured that Socialism will 
bring freedom. Let us see if that is so. Let us consider 
a state operated upon the principles of Socialism. In 
whatever position the average man finds himself upon 
the day that Socialism goes into effect, there he stays. 
The managers of no socialistic state could ever tolerate 
any personal choice in filling jobs. In the first place, it 
would be an almost endless affair, and all industry would 
be disorganized while it was going on. In the second 
place, it would be impossible to fill those jobs requiring 
hard or unpleasant labor. No one would receive more 
than another without grossly violating socialistic prin- 
ciples. All are equal and everyone's work, therefore, is 
of equal importance with that of everyone else. All per- 
sonal incentive would be removed, for one would have at 
any given time all he could ever hope to have. Indus- 
triousness, thought, earnestness would count for noth- 
ing. The quality of the work done, and of the product 
itself, would deteriorate. Few men would do more than 
go through the motions of work for a given number of 
hours a day, if they could expect no personal reward. No 
man would throw himself, body and soul, into his work, 
if he could gain nothing he could call his own. The in- 
dividual, deprived of all outlet for his ambition, would be 
thrown back upon himself and would decay mentally and 
physically. Production would thus be automatically cur- 
tailed. Scarcity would set in," and the whole experiment 
would finally result in a chaotic scramble for existence. It 
would end, undoubtedly, in something akin to feudalism, 
even if such a system could hold us back from barbarism. 
Until lately, the world has been progressing. Socialism 
would be a direct backward step. When once an in- 

32 



dividual begins to retrograde, it is passing difficult for 
him to stop short of destruction, and the same thing 
holds true of an organization. 

Man is naturally a competitive animal, whose powers 
are called forth only by the desire to achieve some- 
thing — almost always something that nobody else can do. 
It is folly to close one's eyes to this fact. If this were 
not so, man would have gone under, long ago. He would 
have succumbed to the iron conditions of his existence 
in prehistoric times. Any system that sets out to repress 
or to suppress the individual as Socialism proposes, is 
doomed to failure. 

Personal choice in filling jobs not to be thought of, 
the Government would be forced to resort to a form of 
conscription in order to keep the social machine running. 
Freedom in choice of occupation would be gone. It could 
allow no discussion of its acts ; for, being concerned with 
so vital a matter as providing for the subsistence of all 
the people, whatever it said would have to go without 
question. Freedom of speech would be gone. Eefusal 
to work would be treason, punishable with death, and 
would not and could not be tolerated for an instant. 
Freedom of action would be gone. What is there left? 

Socialism puts no higher value, in reality, upon a man 
than is today placed upon a horse or hog. It considers 
him an animal, and it would treat him as such. It does 
not take into consideration the fact that every man has 
aspirations personal to himself or to his family. It would 
bed, feed and care for him well, perhaps, for a time, and 
permit him occasionally to run at ease and amuse him- 
self, but it wouldn't permit him to think and act for 
himself. How could it? It couldn't run a week, if it did. 
This is slavery, and slavery in its most grievous form. 
The slave at Rome, or in the South before the War, had 
the hope ever before him of escape. Where could the 

33 



poor socialistic slave escape to ? Wherever he went there 
he would find the Government. He couldn't get a bite 
to eat or a place in which to sleep, without first getting 
the consent of some official. What that would mean, 
anyone who has had any dealings with governmental 
functionaries knows full well. The private slave could, 
by good conduct, and thus getting the good- will of his 
master, ease his lot very materially, and even secure his 
freedom. This chance would never be offered the public 
slave. Far removed from the central authority, with 
no opportunity except through good luck of ever coming 
into contact with anyone having real power, he would 
pass his life with no hope of ever having more than he 
had, or with no hope of any change in his life. What's 
everybody's business is nobody's business. As his condi- 
tion would be everybody's business, nobody would care 
what happened to him. 

Foreseeing that, undoubtedly, their rule would be far 
from popular, the promoters of Socialism propose to in- 
augurate when they come to power, what they call the 
Perpetual Revolution — or, in other words, to maintain 
themselves in power by martial law, machine guns, ar- 
tillery, tanks, high-power rifles, etc. In this, they are 
very wise; for they probably could not keep themselves 
in power by any other means. This intention should bid 
the masses pause. Freedom once lost today will not be 
easily recovered. Our American Eevolution was no easy 
affair, and it was all but lost on several occasions; but 
it would be child's play compared to a similar revolution 
nowadays. Three or four able, resolute, unscrupulous 
men and 500,000 well-fed soldiers, with plenty of war 
munitions, could maintain indefinitely their grasp on 
almost any nation today. 

The basic principle of Socialism, that Labor creates 
all wealth, is wrong. A moment 's reflection will convince 

34 



any unprejudiced person that this cannot be true. Does 
brute force ever create more than enough to provide for 
its own subsistence? The brute force exerted by any 
one of our larger animals in prosecuting the business of 
his daily life is far greater than that put forth by any 
four or five men in any given time, but the brute creates 
no wealth. Wealth is that part of the proceeds of labor 
that is left over after the maintenance of the laborer has 
been provided for. "Wealth, therefore, can only be cre- 
ated when labor is directed by intelligence, in addition 
to instinct. Maintenance is labor's share of what is cre- 
ated ; wealth belongs to intelligence. The relations exist- 
ing between a man and his horse demonstrate this fact. 
Primeval man created little or no wealth. The savage 
inhabitant of the tropics lays up little or nothing at the 
present day — a practice the indulgent climate permits, 
and one followed from remote generations. The dweller 
in the north laid by something in the fall against the 
winter, but undoubtedly it was never sufficient to last 
through till spring. Plis possessions were not as great, 
probably, as those of our own wild Indians, and con- 
sisted simply of his rude weapons, cooking utensils, some 
sort of a rough portable dwelling, and his wives. 

Capital really first made its appearance when men left 
off hunting as a means of livelihood, and began to domes- 
ticate cattle — the increase of which over and above in- 
dividual requirements for flesh food, being capital. Intel- 
ligence had intervened, and supplementing instinct as the 
motive force of life, showed man how he could amass 
something that would make him independent of nature 
to a large extent. Private ownership, too, had probably 
been established, for the one who first tamed a cow or a 
goat would probably claim it as his own, and the prece- 
dent thus being set, would undoubtedly be followed. 
And at the instant someone seized something and said, 

35 



"This is mine," at that instant civilization began, and the 
individual was born. 54 

"When men settled into fixed habitations, however, pri- 
vate ownership of land did not immediately follow. 
For centuries, even after the Christian Era, community 
ownership and cultivation of land prevailed all over 
Europe. But all this while, men were becoming more and 
more efficient, the limits of their power over their environ- 
ment were being pushed forward continually. Of course, 
the few always dominated, and possessions of various 
kinds were always held by them as officials of the state. 

As the worker has gone on exhibiting an ever increas- 
ing amount of intelligence in the prosecution of his daily 
tasks, his rewards have been correspondingly enlarged. 
The great important fact remains, however, that the di- 
recting intelligence demands, and will obtain, the greater 
reward. This is true, no matter what system may be in 
vogue. It is a significant fact that co-operative societies 
are obliged to seek their directing intelligence from the 
competitive world. The managers of a socialistic state 
would receive greater rewards than the great mass of its 
citizens. In such a case, with a perpetual revolution 
going on, those in authority would have absolute power 
over all the resources of a state, and over the life of every 
inhabitant of it. The possibilities for rewards under such 
circumstances can scarcely be imagined. 

Intelligence must receive these rewards or it will decay. 
The body, deprived of exercise, becomes useless after a 
time; so the mind, deprived of problems upon which to 
exercise itself, or to solve, becomes inert. There must 
be also some sort of recompense to man for his work — 
something he can reflect upon with pride, else he will 
cease eventually, to work. The trouble with the present 
situation does not lie with the principle of rewards, but 
in that the rewards our money captains have received 

36 



are too great. They bear no reasonable proportion to 
the services that have been performed. The greater the 
work, the greater the reward, is sound reasoning. The 
reward, however, to be just, must bear a reasonable pro- 
portion to the service performed. When one of our 
large packing concerns declared a stock dividend of 
$40,000,000 recently, the stockholders were being re- 
warded far more than they deserved — no matter how 
great a public service they may have performed in pre- 
paring meats for the public use, and many of them, of 
course, had not lent brains at all — only invested money. 

Socialism, if it could be made to work — which is im- 
possible — would enslave everyone to the state, the harsh- 
est, most heartless of task masters. The governments of 
antiquity, not knowing any other method of performing 
the business of daily life, recognized and protected the 
ownership of men by other men. But none of those 
governments ever thought of enslaving all its citizens 
and compelling them all to work for the same reward. 
True, in Plato's republic, there are socialistic features, 
but the thought of enslaving the whole nation would 
have been abhorrent to the Greeks before they were con- 
quered — or to the Romans at any time. Even the Roman 
Emperors were required to preserve the forms and sym- 
bols of liberty. Such a thought would not have shocked 
a feudal nobleman, provided he, himself, were to have a 
share in administering the government; but probably 
no other class of beings that ever lived, could have enter- 
tained it without feelings of horror. 

Still, Socialism is offered to us in the name of Liberty 
and Equality, and no doubt, most of those who advocate 
it really believe that it will give economic and industrial 
freedom. There are those among the socialists, however, 
who have no illusions about it. One of Bela Kun's follow- 
ers is reported to have said — " Socialism is more efficient 

37 



than Capitalism, because the worker will be forced to 
accept a reasonable wage." There is the whole matter 
in a nut-shell. Under Socialism, with a perpetual revo- 
lution going on, and martial law in force, the workers 
will be forced to accept whatever wages the Govern- 
ment may choose to give them. There may be economic 
freedom under such an arrangement for a time, but there 
can be no industrial or political freedom. Money might 
circulate for a time, but it would gradually disappear, 
despite all the efforts of the state to prevent it. Men 
would lay by for a rainy day. Tickets would then be 
substituted, good for whatever might be needed, but 
even these would bring less and less, for production 
would be automatically curtailed in ever greater degree. 
Finally the whole machine would cease to function. 

Progress, too, would cease the instant the Government 
assumed control of industry. There would be no one to 
compete with, hence, no one would be interested in main- 
taining quality of production. People would have to be 
content with what they could get. Invention would be 
discouraged, even prohibited — for the Government 
wouldn't care to " scrap" machinery and install new or 
put on the market any novel or improved goods when 
there was no necessity for it. Competition compels 
progress; monopoly stifles and destroys it. A govern- 
mental monopoly in all things would be the most terrible 
of monopolies, too, for no one would have any chance of 
redress of any sort. 

It would be the most wasteful of systems. The activi- 
ties of any sort of Collective Effort are always wasteful. 
Anything the Government does always cost more than 
if it were done under private effort. One of the causes 
of the present high cost of living is the wasteful man- 
agement of our large corporations. Wherever there is 
divided management and no real personal responsibility, 

38 



there will be waste. If the Government were to under- 
take to operate all the business of our huge corporations 
in addition to its present vast business, the inevitable 
resulting waste would be enormous. Under present con- 
ditions, governmental and even corporation waste can be 
curbed to a very considerable extent by public opinion. 
Under Socialism, of course, there would be no public 
opinion in any subject of governmental concern. Social- 
ism couldn't exist if there were. There would be a riot 
of extravagance and waste, which would be sufficient, 
even if there were no other causes, to overthrow the sys- 
tem within a very short time. 

How would the farmer, the one indispensable man in 
the community, fare under this system? The farmer, 
of necessity, conducts his business upon an individual 
basis. Under free institutions, this will always be so. 
He is at once a laborer and capitalist, producer and con- 
sumer. The " radicals'' state, among other things, that 
if they are intrusted with the management of industry, 
it will be conducted upon the basis of a six-hour day. 
The farm cannot be operated on a six-hour day, nor an 
eight-hour day, nor even upon a ten-hour day. It cannot 
be operated upon fixed hours and conditions at all. The 
farmer, by the very nature of his occupation, is forced 
to meet contingencies as they arise. An attempt on the 
part of any one to interfere with this condition would 
imperil our food supply. If all industry except that of 
farming were conducted upon a six-hour day, the farmer 
would bear the whole load. The working men gathered 
in the towns and cities, would be amusing themselves for 
the greater part of their time, while the farmers would 
be working from daylight to dark feeding them. Under 
such an arrangement, the farmer should receive, if he 
were treated fairly, a much larger individual reward, 
but this is, of course, opposed to true socialistic prin- 

39 



ciples. But even if he did get a greater reward, what 
would it be worth to him? Under the conception of social- 
ism, it is wrong for a man to possess anything he can 
call his own. Everything he has, including himself, be- 
longs to the state. A few tickets more or less wouldn't 
mean anything. Until the science of farming is revo- 
lutionized, and a way has been discovered to conduct it 
as any other business is conducted, it is useless to talk 
of communism or any other form of Nationalized Collec- 
tive Effort. The condition of the farmer is bad enough 
today. If he were confronted by a communistic autoc- 
racy of the proletariat, managing all things for the ben- 
efit of the workers, wouldn't his condition be infinitely 
worse? It is no more just for the workers, so called, to 
make of the farmers their " hewers of wood and drawers 
of water' ' than it is for any other element of the com- 
munity to do so. 

There is nothing good for the farmer in socialism or 
any other form of Nationalized Collective Effort. The 
first effect of any one of these systems upon him would 
be to throw him into a form of slavery more abject, dis- 
mal and profound than any other ever before known 
among men. His condition would be worse than that of 
the French peasants under the "Old Regime." But as 
shown before, under Communism, the amount of pro- 
duction would be curtailed automatically in ever greater 
degree, and its quality would correspondingly deterio- 
rate, until after a time, all the activities of men would 
degenerate into a mad scramble for existence. The work- 
ers, in distinction to the farmers, would at first find them- 
selves in a more advantageous position. Located in the 
seats of industry, they would be enabled to ' ' grab ' ' more 
readily what they needed than would the farmers, re- 
moved some distance away. The finish, however, of such 
a scheme, if it could by any possibility sweep on to a 

40 



finish, would find the farmer the most enviably situated 
man in the land, for then we would be back where our 
ancestors started, in the "forests primeval. " Most of us 
that owned no farms would be in slavery to the farmers, 
glad enough to give our services to them for something 
to eat and a place in which to sleep. 

Would such a system establish equality? Could a 
system that placed men of differing degrees of mental 
and physical ability on the same level practically in all 
things and strove to keep them there, maintain them for 
any length of time upon a footing of equality? If an in- 
telligent, capable man were deprived of the right to exer- 
cise his faculties naturally and thereby prevented from 
logically developing himself, would he not inevitably sink 
lower than the level arbitrarily adopted? Would not the 
operation of the rule of progress and its opposite destroy 
an equality so established at the moment of its adop- 
tion? In the last analysis, does not Socialism mean the 
subversion of intelligence and the elevation of brute 
force to supremacy over it? 

Man, as remarked before, is a competitive animal. He 
can never reach the full extent of his powers without a 
struggle. Paul admonishes, in Galations, Chapter 6, 2d 
verse, — "Bear ye one another's burdens"; but he adds, 
5th verse, same chapter, "For every man shall bear his 
own burden". That sums up the whole case. Volumes 
could not say more. While we may help each other, yet 
we cannot, in the last analysis, relieve another of his 
work. Socialism is an attempt to shift to the whole peo- 
ple each one's individual task, and, for that reason, it 
could never be made to work. The very persons it is 
designed to help, when once they understood it, would be 
the first to overthrow it. Men wish to be free. They 
also wish a fair chance to get on in the world. These 
two things are all they ask for. Socialism gives them 

41 



neither. They are turning to it, though, because they 
realize that the present system is fast depriving them of 
both— if it has not already done so, and the advocates of 
Socialism assure them that it will give them all things. 
In despair, without reflection, the world is hurrying on 
into the slavery of Nationalized Collective Effort, because 
it is tired of things as they are. When once it sees the 
way out, Socialism and all other forms of Collective Effort 
will be cast into oblivion. 55 

The work of every-day life will force itself to be done. 
Mankind cannot escape the operation of this immutable 
law that also requires every normal human being to per- 
form some useful labor. In antiquity, and even after, 
men refused to work voluntarily, or were unable to direct 
their own labor and were thrown into slavery and forced 
to toil. Gradually, under the influence of Christianity 
and the strong love of personal freedom inherent among 
the early Celts and Germans, individual self-respect was 
aroused. Men began to be self-supporting, not through 
compulsion, but in obedience to their own self-respect, as 
a matter of personal honor. Today, the man who has no 
real or ostensible occupation is disgraced. The world's 
business is entirely performed by freemen, working vol- 
untarily — a condition Plato thought impossible. But this 
condition, the one that ancient sages thought so trans- 
cendental as to be unworthy of serious discussion, is un- 
satisfactory. Mankind is advised by numbers of honest, 
earnest and apparently sane men that its only means of 
escape from present evils, so monstrous have they become, 
is to throw itself voluntarily into state slavery. Never 
before in all the world's history has such a thing been 
possible. Heretofore, men have been thrown into slav- 
ery against their will, but never before have men been 
willing to consider the question of their own enslave- 
ment from the standpoint of personal choice, to escape 

42 



evil conditions. Till this hour, slavery has been unani- 
mously held to be the worst condition that man could 
get into. "What is slavery ?" it may be asked. Slavery 
is a condition of individual existence in which a person 
is maintained without thought or suggestion or mental 
acquiescence on his part in sufficiently good condition to 
perform the labor that a human power, ordained by law, 
superior to and external to himself by legal right demands 
of him. Liberty, on the contrary, is a condition that gives 
the individual full opportunity to subsist, maintain and 
develop himself according to his own inclination and 
judgment as long as he does not interfere with any other 
individual exercising the same rights. 

If, at any time or place in all the history of the world, 
the principle of Communism, or Socialism, if you like, 
had a fair chance to succeed among civilized men, it was 
at Plymouth. With not a single exception, the voyage 
of the Pilgrims, and the subsequent Puritan migration, 
was the only movement of its kind ever undertaken that 
had in it no suggestion of material gain. All the other 
American colonies were settled by adventurers seeking 
to mend or make their fortunes. The Pilgrims and the 
Puritans, on the contrary, were moved by the single pur- 
pose of seeking a place where they could pursue un- 
molested the worship of God as they saw fit. Most all 
of them originally left good homes in England; some 
of them gave up fortunes and good social standing. They 
landed on a bleak and dreary coast after winter had set 
in. Their settlement had to be made under the most dis- 
couraging circumstances. Their food supply was short. 
They were surrounded by hostile Indians. They were 
thrown back, practically by reason of their situation, to 
the primitive life of their Anglo-Saxon forefathers. It 
was but natural that they should fall back upon Collec- 
tive Effort, upon the idea of mutual help. The food was 

43 



placed in public store and issued only upon requisitions 
authorized by the governing authorities. Communistic 
cultivation of the soil was established. The experiment 
scarcely lasted three years — for, as Bradford says : 

"The experience that was had in this comone course 
and condition, tried sundrie years and that amongst godly 
and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that con- 
ceite of Platos and other ancients, applauded by some of 
later times — that the taking away of propertie and bring- 
ing in communitie into a comone wealth would make 
them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser than 
God. For this communitie (so farr as it was) was found 
to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much 
imployment that would have been to their benefite and 
comforte. For the yong-men that were most able and 
fitte for labour and servise did repine that they should 
spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens 
wives and children without any recompence. The strong, 
or man of parts, had no more in a devission of victails 
and cloaths than he that was weake ; and not able to doe 
a quarter the other could; this was thought injuestice. 
The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in 
labours and victails, cloaths, etc. with the meaner and 
yonger sorte thought it some indignitie and disrespect 
unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to 
do servise for other men, dresing their meate, washing 
their cloaths, etc. they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither 
could many husbands well brooke it. Upon the poynte 
all being to have alike and all to doe alike they thought 
themselves in the like condition and one as good as an- 
other ; and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God 
hath set amongest men, yet it did at least much diminish 
and take of the mutuall respects that should be pre- 
served amongest them. And would have bene worse if 
they had bene men of another condition. Let none ob- 

44 



jecte this is men's corruption and nothing to the course 
itselfe. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption 
in them, God in His wisdome saw another course fiter 
for them." 56 

If the Pilgrims, earnest, honest zealots, sustained by 
the loftiest purpose known to men, in a bleak and barren 
land, confronted with starvation and surrounded by hos- 
tile savages, cut off by an unknown wilderness and the 
vast Atlantic from all other men, couldn't make Com- 
munism work, how or when could it ever be made to 
work ? 

The Pilgrims were no weaklings, neither were they 
11 molly coddles." No men more dauntless in purpose or 
set in pursuit of their object or more iron in method 
when once they thought they were right and doing the 
will of God, ever lived. They were the greatest associa- 
tion of men — the Pilgrims and their brethren the Puri- 
tans — that ever trod the earth, and when they tried to 
execute a scheme and failed, no other men need ever try 
it; for it cannot be done. 



45 



SECTION 5. 

The End and Aim of Government. 

The conviction, common to most reformers of the pres- 
ent day, that Government can accomplish everything; 
that, make it powerful enough, men can obtain through its 
sole agency all they can possibly desire, shows clearly that 
a proper idea as to the potency of Government, what it 
can and cannot accomplish, is lacking. Governments 
among primitive men undoubtedly sprang into being spon- 
taneously through a need for protection. Only through 
association with his fellows could man defend himself 
against the harsh conditions of his life, against wild 
beasts and against other men living nearby. The good 
results that followed this association easily led to the 
birth of the idea that prevailed commonly in the ancient 
world that men existed for the state. 

In antiquity, man was not considered as having any 
inherent rights. What rights he had were a gift to him 
from the state; and, conversely, the state could at its 
pleasure deprive him of them. The average individual 
had a rough time of it in getting recognition for him- 
self. Under early Roman paganism, the individual was 
not thought to possess a soul. 57 

With the adoption of slavery, privilege was established. 
Privilege deprived man, in the mass, of all that we now 
consider his rights, and bestowed them on its beneficiaries 
— rights, be it remarked in passing, which the socialists 
advise us again to take from the individual and make over 
to the state. In other words, the state under Socialism 
would assume the place formerly ocupied by the noble- 

46 



man, a "throwback" in political thought, if ever there 
was one. 

Although in both Greece and Eome there were num- 
bers of freemen, and their institutions were republican 
in form, yet the rights its citizens enjoyed came to them 
as a gift — not as something inherent in them, as re- 
marked above. The state, therefore, could call upon its 
citizens for any sacrifice, no matter how great, if it 
seemed to be for its best interests. Considering industry 
and trade as of more importance to herself than agri- 
culture, Athens deliberately destroyed her peasant farm- 
ing population by hostile legislation, in order that her 
artisans and mechanics might have cheap wheat — a course 
similar to that pursued by England in recent times. It 
was impossible for Athenian politicians to conceive that 
the farmer had any claim on the state which she was 
bound to consider. More illustrations from the histories 
of both Greece and Rome might be cited, but this one is 
sufficient. In war, of course, the rights of the state were 
paramount. Conscription of everything was a recognized 
practice. The army lived on the citizens. Payment for 
subsistence seized was unthought of. 

When Caesar penetrated into the forests of Gaul and 
Germany, he found living there a strange race of people, 
divided into a great number of small tribes, differing 
among themselves in language, religion and laws, yet 
possessing in common a trait that distinguished them from 
all other men — love of freedom and personal independ- 
ence. War w r as, of course, their chief business, as they 
were half savage and had not yet settled in fixed habita- 
tions. Only through the booty and plunder won in war 
could they get a living, but their military organization 
was essentially democratic. Their wars were raids, for 
the most part, in which they followed voluntarily some 
popular, successful or promising leader; but personal 

47 



honor forbade a withdrawal from the field until they 
were victorious or defeated. In Tacitus' day these tribes 
possessed fixed dwelling places, but still preserved in un- 
diminished fervor the strong love of freedom that aroused 
Caesar's interest. 58 

When the strong arm of Rome commenced to relax and 
the business of keeping a world in order became too much 
for her, these tribes began to cross the Rhine— at first in 
small bodies, and then in whole tribes — and settle in the 
richer and more fertile lands of the Empire. As they 
encountered no real resistance, they at length overran 
the whole Empire in the West, and took up their abode 
wherever it pleased them. It should not be inferred that 
there was no resistance on the part of the Roman Empire 
against the Germanic tribes. Far from it. For upwards 
of 400 years Rome held the barbarians at bay on the line 
of her natural northern frontier — the Rhine and the 
Danube. Even in Caesar's time a tribe attempted to 
cross the Rhine, but he thwarted the effort. It was only 
after her fighting spirit had fled and she was obliged to 
depend upon mercenary soldiers (from the German tribes, 
for the most part) that she fell in the West, a prey of the 
very means she had relied on for protection. 

This great series of movements, known as the Migra- 
tion of the Nations, resulted in the downfall of Rome in 
the West. The tribes that overran what is now France 
and Italy, had long been in contact with the Roman 
power, and had learned to respect and fear it. In the 
hour of victory, although they destroyed much of what 
they fell heir to, yet they preserved many things, nor 
could they eradicate the Roman tradition, that super- 
stition, awe and reverence that the mighty name of Rome 
instinctively evoked, even when its material power was 
but a memory. The spread of Christianity, too, in which 

48 



the Roman bishops were so active, very greatly aided in 
preserving this feeling. 59 

Many among the German tribes, especially those in 
the north and east, had had no opportunities for coming 
into contact with Rome, and were, consequently, far less 
civilized than those in the west and south — neither had 
the Christian missionaries been among them. Among 
these were three tribes — the Angles, the Saxons and the 
Jutes, living in the far north of Germany near the mouths 
of the Weser and Elbe and on what is now known as the 
peninsula of Jutland. Soon after Rome withdrew her 
military forces from Britain, these crossed over in answer 
to a summons for help from the Britons, settled there, 
and after a lapse of time, overran most of what is now 
England and either subjugated or drove back the inhabi- 
tants. They found there the Roman civilization highly 
developed, as Rome had occupied the country for up- 
wards of 300 years. The unaccustomed sight of beauti- 
ful cities, well-kept roads and an orderly, systematic mode 
of life aroused their wrath, and in sheer rage at some- 
thing they couldn't understand, and through hatred of 
Christianity as well, they so utterly destroyed all 
that Rome had left in Britain when she withdrew her 
legions, that in 200 years scarcely a vestige of it remained. 
Buildings, roads, laws, customs, Christianity 60 — every- 
thing — were swept away. 61 

Sad as this was in some respects, it served a purpose 
its perpetrators could never have foreseen. It enabled 
the race that sprang from the fusion of the native stock 
with the invaders — the Anglo-Saxon — to build anew on 
the basis of Germanic and Celtic love of freedom and 
personal independence. Separated from the continent of 
Europe by a disagreeable and perilous bit of navigation, 
the Anglo-Saxons were left to work out their problem, 
far removed from the tangles of continental politics. 62 

49 



For the orderly, systematic, procedures of Roman ad- 
ministration were substituted the rough, boisterous prac- 
tices of the folkmeet, the hundred courts, etc., methods 
with which the Britons were familiar in tradition at 
least — methods that embodied the great principle of "rep- 
resentation, ' - or delegated authority, a principle peculiar 
to the Anglo-Saxon ideals, and responsible in no small 
measure for their tenacity and vigor. 63 For Roman law, 
based on the natural supremacy of the state over the 
individual, was substituted the personal law which pre- 
vailed in the forests of Gaul and Germany and found in 
each and every man certain rights the state couldn't 
take away. To Christianity, which had been brought to 
the island, some say by Simon Zoletes, the rites of pagan- 
ism succeeded. 

The Anglo-Saxons had no peaceful destiny. Anglo- 
Saxon law was not evolved by a race of "Molly coddles," 
nor was Anglo-Saxon liberty won by "Pacifists" armed 
with "Elder stalk squirts charged with rosewater." 
(Lincoln.) Through struggle and violence, suffering and 
sorrow, the foundations of Anglo-Saxon law and liberty 
were laid deep and sound, so that when the conquering 
race came, the Normans, even those iron autocrats were 
unable to shake them. 

The contrast between the striking ease with which the 
Roman idea prevailed over the early Germanic idea on 
the Continent, and the unconquerable tenacity exhib- 
ited by the Anglo-Saxon ideal, strongly indicates that 
some preponderating influence was at work in England, 
external to the German tribes themselves. The isolation 
of England will not account for it all, nor the ignorance 
of the invaders of things Roman. This influence may 
have been exerted in part by the Danes. It is a curious 
fact that those parts of England most thickly settled by 
this people became, in after centuries, the strongest 

50 



centres of Puritanism. But its sources cannot be traced 
entirely to Danish beginnings, for it must have been 
exerted long before the Danish invasion. 

The Celtic tribes of Gaul, as Caesar learned, loved 
freedom more strongly even than the Germans. Some 
of these tribes are known to have settled in England 
before the Eoman occupation, and undoubtedly held to 
their laws and customs during the Roman days, for Rome 
probably did not succeed in assimilating entirely the 
great body of the people. This Celtic influence, there- 
fore, must have supplied in England that which was 
found wanting among the Germans on the continent. 
In other words, the Anglo-Saxon ideal did not originate 
entirely with the Germans, but it must be attributed to 
a fusion of the ideals of the two races, to which a little 
later was added the Danish contribution. 

Another dominant reason for the irresistible tenacity 
of life exhibited by Anglo-Saxon law and custom (the 
basis, of course, of Anglo-Saxon freedom) lay in the fact 
that they related chiefly to local and personal concerns. 
Amid the turmoil and turbulence that marked the period 
of its early development, the common people lived on 
as their forefathers had, and adjusted their local and 
personal concerns in accordance with immemorial cus- 
tom and usage, modified by common sense to suit new 
and unforeseen conditions as they arose. 

When the Normans came, they found local affairs regu- 
lated by a body of laws and customs so wise and efficient, 
so unapproachable in justice and simplicity, so suited 
to the purpose, that as long as royal prerogative was not 
interfered with, they put no obstructions in the course of 
its operations, but suffered it to remain in force. 64 

The second advent of Christianity to Britain had also a 
profound effect upon the law by lessening the severity of 
many of its harsh penalties. Churchmen also reduced 

51 



much of it to writing, and, no doubt, assisted local officials 
in its administration. There is, too, a singular and beau- 
tiful affinity between the teachings of Christ and the 
provisions of the English Common Law. The basis of 
Anglo-Saxon law is personal liberty "regulated by law." 
Under its conception, the individual is born with certain 
rights, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' ' that 
the state cannot deprive him of, except as he automatic- 
ally forfeits them by acts contrary to the public welfare. 
Such a conception makes of the state the servant instead 
of the master of the individual, and upon that basis, 
theoretically, we, of the United States, are living today. 

In "Village Communities, ' ' Section III, page 73, Sir 
Henry Maine has commented on the curious effect of Eng- 
lish law upon the East Indian native. Accustomed through 
ages to regard the village as the unit and himself as of 
no account, the native, when once the English law had 
been introduced, seemed to find himself. He discovered 
that he, as an individual, was something — had a standing 
before the law, a right peculiar to himself; and pathetic- 
ally enough, numbers of them hastened with little or no 
excuse to test that right to see if it were real. The great 
merit of the English law, a quality that distinguishes it 
from all other human systems, is that it ennobles the 
individual ; and it is through this quality that it finds con- 
sonance with the Divine Law, as revealed to us in the 
New Testament. 

While the Anglo-Saxons were undergoing the convul- 
sions incident to the birth of "Liberty regulated by 
law," the continent was the scene of a far different proc- 
ess. As remarked before, the tribes that overran Prance 
and Italy had long, been in direct contact with Eome and 
had learned to look with awe and reverence upon a power 
and civilization too vast and intricate for them to under- 
stand. What they did understand they saved, and with 

52 



this as a basis, began a new life. In this new life, the 
Eoman bishops of the Christian Church bore the pre- 
dominant part. There gradually began to be unfolded 
to men the uses of those things they had so carelessly 
thrown away, the memory of which still survived some- 
what. These they adopted, and incorporated into their 
lives as best they could. Men acquired the habit of con- 
templating the grandeur, pomp and ceremony the dead 
giant possessed when living, and the idea that Roman 
thought represented all that was best in law, politics 
and institutions gained ascendancy. This idea finally 
extinguished the early German love of liberty, and substi- 
tuted for it a passion for Imperialism and its accompany- 
ing pomp and display. The church, aiming at universal 
dominion in religious affairs, stimulated the growth of 
this thought by advocating the formation of two em- 
pires, one of the soul, the other of the world, that should 
control entirely the affairs of men. This idea came to full 
fruition on Easter Sunday 800 A. D. when Charlemagne 
was crowned in St. Peter's as Holy Roman Emperor. 
As Bryce shows, men then living saw nothing curious 
or novel or epoch-making in this event. 65 It simply 
gave expression in material symbols to the common 
idea that the Roman world power had never passed 
away. Those who saw the great Frankish chief- 
tain kneel before the Roman pontiff and receive the crown 
of the Holy Roman Empire, did not know it, but they were 
witnessing one of the greatest events in history. It de- 
cided the trend of continental history up to the present, 
and for how much longer in the future, no one knows. 
It confirmed the Roman tradition as the guiding force 
in continental politics, and committed all Europe outside 
of England to the ascendancy of Roman ideals in law, 
politics and government. The Roman theory as to the 
paramountcy of the state over the individual prevailed* 

53 



and thus the way was paved for the advent of the idea 
of modern Socialism. Koine, Imperial Rome, conquered 
in spirit when she had failed in the flesh. 

So Europe was the scene of two differing systems of 
civilization, developing side by side — the old Roman idea 
of Imperialism and the English idea of Individualism. 66 

They clashed many times. The greatest one came on 
July 30, 1914, when Germany, heir of the Roman idea, 
drew the sword. The idea, however, did not perish when 
German militarism fell, no more than it did when the 
Roman military power failed to hold the barbarians at 
bay. It exists now, today, and is the motive force be- 
hind all the various schemes to nationalize industry 
that are being put forth in the name of Liberty. It is 
back of all forms of Collective Effort, of the corpora- 
tion, of co-operative institutions, of the labor union — in 
short, of all forms of human activity in which associated 
effort is substituted for individual effort. The issue is 
clearly drawn. Shall the modern or the ancient concep- 
tion of government prevail ? Shall Liberty or Slavery tri- 
umph? 

As remarked before, there is a singular and awe-com- 
pelling consonance between the principles of Christian- 
ity and the spirit of Anglo-Saxon law. This law was 
born of customs, prevailing among the Gauls and Germans 
long before the Christian Era, but the two fitted together 
with a nicety that reveals unmistakably a more than 
human design. The principles of Christianity can be 
summed up in one single sentence — "Thou shalt love thy 
God with all thy might and thy neighbor as thyself." 
Christianity, in dealing with the problems of human life, 
applies itself strictly to the individual. Christ's admon- 
itions were addressed solely to the individual. Nowhere 
in the gospels can we find an intimation, even, that Christ 
considered life as other than an affair of the individual. 

54 



Jesus never referred to class save once, when he said — 
"How hardly shall the rich man enter the Kingdom of 
Heaven," — meaning, no doubt, that the rich man busy 
with his schemes of material gain, would devote but little 
thought to his spiritual welfare. He added, however, that 
all things were possible to God ; intimating that even the 
rich man might be saved. When one comes to consider 
the location of the Kingdom of Heaven as made by Jesus, 
he can reach no other conclusion than that Jesus ' teach- 
ings were intended solely for the individual ; that he did 
not, in the broad sweep of His vision, confine His thoughts 
to any social subdivision of men whatsoever. "The 
Kingdom of Heaven," he said, "cometh not with obser- 
vation, for behold the Kingdom of Heaven is within you." 
Not, you will observe, within the laboring man, nor with- 
in the middle class man, nor yet within the rich man, 
but in You — that is, within each and every individual of 
every class. Of course, the inference plainly is : within 
the reach of every individual, if he would but follow in 
the way Christ showed. As life, then, in the opinion of 
Jesus, was but an affair of individual self-development, 
what sort of a government would be most nearly in con- 
sonance with His ideals? Naturally, the one that gives the 
individual the greatest opportunity for self-development 
and unfolding. 

As pointed out above, the political ideals of our Anglo- 
Saxon forefathers, crude and vague as they may have 
been, were founded absolutely on certain inherent indiv- 
idual rights. Hence, all governments derived from them 
are more nearly in consonance with Christ's ideal than 
those derived from other sources. 

This difference in conception as to the nature of the 
relation between Government and the individual citizen 
that exists between the Anglo-Saxon ideal and the Roman, 
has given rise, necessarily, to a difference in conception 

55 



as to the proper function of Government — what it can 
and cannot accomplish. 

The Roman ideal, clothing the government with abso- 
lute powers, giving it paramount rights over its citizens, 
leads naturally to the conclusion that the government can 
accomplish all things. In all the activities of life under 
such an idea, the government must take the initiative ; 
must concern itself most intimately with the every-day 
doings of its citizens; must in short, organize, direct 
and govern everything. It is obvious that such a gov- 
ernment can function efficiently only when its citizens 
are in a state of absolute physical and mental dependence 
upon it. Independence of thought and action on the part 
of any considerable body of its subjects would throw the 
whole machine out of gear. Therefore, under its sway 
there would not be developed a nation of hardy, inde- 
pendent, forceful men prone to take the initiative ; but 
rather, on the contrary, a nation of timid, irresolute be- 
ings always waiting for the initiative to be taken by some 
power external to and above them. In other words, it 
would develop a nation of hero worshippers, lackeys or 
serfs. There would be, therefore, no individual develop- 
ment or improvement under such a system. The indiv- 
idual would tend to retrograde rather than progress under 
it. The fibres of individual character being weakened, 
such a government would, of course, be obliged to do 
everything. Nothing would be done otherwise. It would 
be working, however, with imperfect instruments, and 
the work it performed would tend to be done ever and 
ever less efficiently until it ceased, after a while, to func- 
tion at all. It might continue on indefinitely. It might 
even pile up a vast amount of material wealth. It might 
present to the world a wonderful picture of power and 
splendor ; but at the crisis, it would perish. It would have 
purchased its material aggrandizement at the expense of 

56 



the character of its individual citizens. This would have 
been in process of decay unseen to the eye. It needed 
but the test to disclose its dissolution. The history of 
the Roman Empire confirms the truth of this assertion. 67 

This system of Government finds it impossible to trans- 
act the business of every-day life without slavery of 
some sort. Tt required physical slavery in antiquity and 
the Middle Ages. It requires mental slavery today. 

The Anglo-Saxon ideal breeds a race of hardy, reso- 
lute, independent men — freemen in every sense of the 
word. It could not function if a majority of its citizens 
were men such as the "Roman ideal requires. Under the 
Anglo-Saxon ideal, the government is an umpire seeing to 
it that each citizen is protected in his rights and receives 
a fair chance. This idea develops the individual character 
of its citizens, and enables them to meet successfully 
the problems of life as men. It does not interfere with 
the individual initiative of its citizens. It confines itself 
to its province as lawgiver and administrator. It does 
not attempt to accomplish anything of itself, except along 
the lines of public as opposed to private activity, where 
the magnitude of the work is so great as to be beyond 
the scope of individual endeavor. 

The aim of Government should be to secure the great- 
est possible good to the greatest possible number. Every- 
one claims to believe this. History teaches that autoc- 
racies fail entirely in accomplishing this aim; that no 
matter how beneficent the intentions of their leaders may 
be, they eventually fall into the hands of the few, and 
reduce the many to physical or mental slavery— often 
both. 

It is impossible for men to secure happiness, unless 
they are unhampered, unfettered, free in body and in 
mind — not theoretically, but actually. Hence, that Gov- 
ernment is most beneficent that interferes the least with 

57 



the individual business and activity of its citizens. It 
is true that this is hard to believe. It does seem as 
though the power that gives us law and order could 
also bring to us all we need or desire, even without real 
thought or effort on our part, if we allowed it to. But 
it is just this very solecism (that Collective Effort of any 
sort brings freedom and happiness to its participants) 
that the world for ages has been seeking — vague and ill- 
defined though the effort may have been— to destroy. 

Imperialism brings enervation, decay, dissolution 
everywhere, to everything, to everybody. Individualism 
brings development, growth, vigor, and is reflected upon 
everything that is undertaken under its rule. The one 
leads forward, the other backward. Today the world 
is suffering frbm the operations of a system that will be 
examined a little later in this work, which has produced 
evils so monstrous that many honest men of good inten- 
tions are advising us to adopt the imperialistic idea as 
our only way of escape. That idea is just as much of a 
fallacy today as it ever was. It would prove but a sorry 
remedy for present day evils. What the present hour 
demands is not less, but more freedom; not Imperialism, 
but Individualism. 



58 



SECTION 6. 

Americanism. 

The ideal of personal freedom and individual liberty, 
in securing general acceptance, encountered difficulties 
3io different from those that any manifestation of truth 
must always overcome. 

The history of England after the Norman Conquest was 
stormy, even when compared to the years preceding it. 
A riot of privilege took place. Privilege, however, is 
never satisfied. The Norman barons, although the Con- 
queror rewarded them bounteously, felt they had received 
less than they deserved. It became necessary to humble 
them. Henry I, in self-defense, brought them in subjec- 
tion to his power, but in doing so was obliged to appeal 
to the people for support. Accompanying this appeal 
was a promise to rule according to the English law and 
custom, and to protect the people in their persons and 
possessions. The people supported him and united them- 
selves behind his throne. 68 

Although this had the effect of strengthening the sov- 
ereign, it also served to unite the people. In Henry's 
time, the fusion between Norman and English had not 
been effected. One hundred years later it had been prac- 
tically accomplished. These years were passed in turmoil 
and turbulence, and had witnessed the ascendancy of first 
the Court and then the Barons time and again. Kichard's 
curious reign, noted chiefly for his trips to the Holy 
Land, served to strengthen the sovereign, largely through 
the romance that attached itself to his name. To this aug- 
mented power John acceded. A capricious, tyrannical 

59 



coward, he estranged all classes of his subjects and 
finally found himself at Kunnymede facing a nation in 
arms ; a nation, too, of freemen, conscious of their power 
and strength. On the 15th of June, 1215, there occurred 
an event in history equal in importance to the crowning 
of Charlemagne. On that day was given to the world 
what is rightly called the Great Charter. 69 The Anglo- 
Saxon ideal had triumphed. The inherent rights of 
men had been committed to writing and been made a 
part of the recorded law of a great nation. It was the 
first great act of the English race. 70 

It was one thing for the people to wrest from privilege 
a recognition of conscious rights, but another to force it 
to act in accordance with those rights; for privilege dies 
hard. For more than 400 years the struggle went on with 
varying success. Often the issue was obscured. Still, the 
great body of the English people lived on, holding with 
the tenacity of bull-dogs to their ideals of freedom and 
independence. Not without design was the sacred burden 
of Liberty and Freedom committed to the English race. 
No other could successfully have borne it. And then the 
Stuarts came: a Scottish house, unacquainted with the 
bull-dog character of the Englishman. Looking upon the 
liberty of the people as a thing to be feared by the sov- 
ereign, and attacking it wherever it could be found, they 
all but succeeded in destroying it. So dark was the out- 
look at one time that numbers of worthy men thought 
the conflict was over, that liberty in England was dead 
beyond recovery. With characteristic tenacity, however, 
they refused to give up their rights, and decided to seek 
in another land a place where they could live under a 
dispensation of "Liberty regulated by law." Accord- 
ingly, a body of English Puritans, the party that finally 
succeeded in overthrowing the Stuarts and rescuing Lib- 
erty for a time from the destruction that threatened it, 

60 



sailed from England in September, 1620, for the coasts 
of North America, intending to settle near the Delaware 
River. Instead, however, they made their land — fall on 
the shores of Cape Cod, late in December — a season that 
did not admit of further exploration. 71 They were forced 
to land where they were, or in the immediate neighbor- 
hood — a fact that has been pregnant of untold good to 
our nation. 

Their first act after casting anchor in the calm, spacious 
harbor now known as Provincetown, was to thank God 
for their safe arrival in "The Promised Land/' bleak 
and dreary as it then appeared. Their second act was 
to draw up a short scheme of Government based on the 
principle of "Equal law," to which all pledged them- 
selves to be subservient. 72 

This scheme, known as the "Mayflower Compact," has 
been pronounced of no importance by some writers. Of 
such men it can be said: "Eyes have they, but they see 
not." The Pilgrims were fleeing from the Motherland 
they dearly loved. Many of them gave up good homes 
and comfortable fortunes — some of them high social posi- 
tion. Believing English liberty dead at home, the seat of 
its origin — and in this they were right, as it turned out 37 
— they considered themselves to be carrying the "Ark of 
the Covenant" to a new land, and they pledged themselves 
to guard that Ark in their new home so zealously that the 
"Philistines" should never again take it from them. The 
language of the Compact may be disappointing. There 
are no lofty, high-sounding phrases in it; no bombast 
or piffle. The men that wrote it were English zealots, 
sober, earnest, practical, and they wrote as such men 
always write — briefly, and to the point. The Mayflower 
Compact is the second great act of the English race. 74 

The cause of freedom did not find, however, a much 
easier way in the new land than it had found at home. 

61 



The Puritans never considered that they had severed 
themselves from the mother country in settling in Massa- 
chusetts. They were still English men and subject to 
England's laws. 

After the expulsion of the Stuarts, England began to 
"run after strange gods," and was no longer the home 
of freedom. Into what a wretched state she at length 
fell can be seen from the terrible evils wrought by the 
factory system in the early years of its existence. 75 In 
New England, however, the light of Liberty burned 
brightly. Although the Puritan conception of Liberty dif- 
fered considerably from ours, the difference was in de- 
gree and not in principle. 

The conduct of the mother country toward her 
colonies would seem to indicate that she was aware 
that her children had succeeded to the custodian- 
ship of that which she had lost. She deliberately 
attempted to inhibit the growth of the colonies, and fail- 
ing in that, tried to turn all the wealth they were creat- 
ing to her own account. But she encountered men "who 
were not lightly turned by obstacles," as Bradford said, 
and men superior to her own; for, as another remarked, 
"God sifted a nation in order that he might send choice 
grain into the wilderness." The colonists pursued their 
ideals, built up their colonies and laid deep the founda- 
tion of their institutions in spite of all the restrictions 
the mother country could throw around them. At length, 
however, the situation became intolerable. "Taxation 
without representation" that cost Charles I his head, 
could no longer be borne. The colonists were English- 
men. They could never forget that. They belonged to 
the only race that had never been enslaved, and no power, 
not even that of their own kin, could enslave them. 
They rebelled against the mother country, and set up 
a government of their own, although because of inter- 



colonial jealousy, it was a weak one. For seven years 
they fought. Many times the issue was in doubt, but 
they finally won. 

When the War was over and Freedom, apparently, no 
longer in peril, the Continental soldiers and the militia 
went home and took up their work where they had left 
off. A condition arose more perilous even than war or 
English rule to the cause of Liberty. There was no cen- 
tral authority that could make itself respected, and an- 
archy seemed about to ensue. For five years this strange 
condition existed. 76 At length, the innate wisdom of the 
race triumphed. Under the leadership of Washington, a 
convention composed of representatives from all the col- 
onies met in Philadelphia and framed the Constitution of 
the United States, — the third great act of the English 
race. 

The Constitution represents the supreme triumph of 
the Anglo-Saxon ideal, tempered by Christianity. It 
commits directly into the hands of all the citizens the 
cause of human liberty. No power of any sort can inter- 
vene between the citizen and his inherent rights, as long 
as the Constitution is enforced. It represents the last 
word in government. Nothing nobler in government than 
that planned by it could ever be conceived. Under its 
operation, at length, Americanism was revealed to the 
world. 

In one sense, Americanism is simply the logical outcome 
of the Anglo-Saxon ideal, tempered by Christianity. In 
another sense, it is not. The Anglo-Saxon ideal prepared 
the minds of men for Americanism, and made possible its 
general acceptance. Without it, Americanism could never 
have come into the world. There is a vast difference, 
however, between the two ideals. In the Anglo-Saxon 
ideal, rank held a prominent place. Caste and privilege 
easily grew out of it. The condition of freedom was 

63 



dependent, in some respects, upon ownership of land. 77 
Most, of course, of the mediaeval thought about Free- 
dom has been lost, but even today, in England, rank 
and privilege have great influence and power. In the 
American ideal, rank and privilege have no place. Each 
individual stands on his own footing. All men, rich or 
poor, in its conception, have the same inherent rights. 
Property is no longer a qualification for absolute free- 
dom. It realizes Christ's conception of the inherent dig- 
nity of labor, skillfully and earnestly performed. 

While this has conferred great benefits upon the indi- 
vidual, it has entailed upon him, also, corresponding 
obligations and duties. It has placed him upon his own 
footing. Hence, he must survive or perish upon his own 
footing, ultimately. He cannot escape his obligations by 
passing them over to some form of Collective Effort. The 
citizen is obliged to aid his fellowman, and also his 
fellowman must aid him. But neither can bear the other's 
burdens. Americanism means, therefore, absolute indi- 
vidual liberty " regulated by law," qualified by the obli- 
gation of considering another's rights equally as im- 
portant as one's own. In other words, in Americanism, 
the Anglo-Saxon ideal has been sloughed off and the 
Christian conception of government and man's relation 
thereto stands revealed in all its majesty and grandeur. 
Americanism has, in reality, no racial origin or affinity, 
and is, therefore, susceptible of world-wide application. 
This fact accounts for the ease with which so many differ- 
ent racial elements are assimilated into our national life. 
It appeals to everyone from everywhere. 

The work of Divine revelation, pertaining to the sci- 
ence of human government and man's place in the world 
among other men, is done. Nothing more will ever be 
shown us. We now know about the matter all that there 

64 



is to know. Our task is to apply what we know to pres- 
ent-day problems, and do our part in solving them. 

Divine Providence has committed no light burden to 
our care. Fortunately, we do not, and cannot, know how 
heavy it may be. It is up to us to do it, and do it we 
must. We must acquit ourselves as men, worthy of the 
great heritage that past generations heroically doing their 
part in suffering and toil have bequeathed to us. 

But what a splendid opportunity and noble privilege 
have been given us! We have been selected to perform 
the greatest work yet done in all history. If we shirk 
our task and take what seems the easiest way, the way 
the ancient ideal points out, all coming generations will 
curse us. If we do our work as it should be done, all 
posterity will be proud of even having lived in a world 
that gave us birth. 



65 



SECTION 7. 

The Ooirporation. 

The corporation is a manifestation of Collective Effort 
that enables a number of men to prosecute as a body an 
enterprise whose magnitude would be too great for any- 
one or all of them to carry on as individuals. It receives 
a charter from the state, which gives it authority to 
transact its business according to certain general regula- 
tions laid down in the law, under which it may be called 
into being. It is essentially, however, a privileged insti- 
tution. It receives broad powers. It can do all that an 
individual may do in business without assuming the indi- 
vidual's full risk, except that it must confine itself to 
the specific object for which it was incorporated; for in- 
stance, a coal mining company cannot engage in the 
manufacture of ice unless the charter and state laws per- 
mit. In legal fiction it is assumed to be an entity, but 
in distinction to a human being, it may, in some states, be 
granted perpetual life. Hence, although ^11 the original 
incorporators of a company may die or sell out their 
interests, it lives on with unimpaired powers. Owner- 
ship in these institutions is held by means of capital 
stock, which is divided into a certain number of shares 
that are purchased by investors in blocks of varying size. 
A holder of stock, however, has no proprietary interest 
in any of the property, real or personal, that a corpora- 
tion may own. Neither can the individual property of a 
stockholder be seized in payment of the debts of a cor- 
poration whose stock he may have purchased. 78 Man- 
agement is entrusted to a Board of Directors chosen from 

66 



among the stockholders; they, in turn, commit a large 
portion of their powers to a President, who is the active 
overseer of the concern's business, and who may or may 
not be a stockholder or director. If a stockholder, he 
may or may not own enough of the stock to determine the 
company's policy — such power requiring the ownership 
or control of a majority of the stock issued. Thus, the 
corporation makes simple a division of management and 
supervision. An individual, acting as such, would find it 
embarrassing, if not impossible, to divide his authority or 
responsibility among a number of other men, for all of 
whose acts he would be personally liable; but, acting 
through a corporation, he is under no such difficulty. 
While in legal fiction it is a being, yet in reality it is a 
thing. It does not know what is being done in its name, 
nor is it possible for any manager, no matter how vigilant, 
to know all that his subordinates are doing. Men come 
to love these beings, and will commit acts in their ser- 
vice that they would not do for themselves. Final re- 
sponsibility is shifted about from one to another, until 
it is impossible to determine it. 

In the closing years of the last century agents of one 
of our largest meat packing concerns were implicated in 
an attempt to bribe members of the New York Legisla- 
ture to pass a law that would make possible the sale of 
certain grades of meats the sale of which was pro- 
hibited. The head of the concern himself appeared as a 
volunteer witness before the Investigating Committee, 
and testified with an earnestness that convinced every 
unprejudiced man that he was telling the truth, that he 
knew nothing of the acts of his men, that he never di- 
rectly or indirectly bribed anyone, never countenanced 
anything savoring of it, and that he utterly disapproved 
of the ends his agents were trying to accomplish. 

The directors of a corporation derive their powers from 

67 



the stockholders, many of whom, maybe, have never seen 
the plant the corporation operates; and the actual man- 
agers derive their powers from directors, whom they may 
not see more than once a year. If a policy proves un- 
popular, the manager absolves himself from responsibility 
by saying that the directors ordered it. The directors 
"pass the buck" on by saying it was done in the interests 
of the stockholders, who demand their dividends at all 
costs. 

It can readily be seen that such an institution makes a 
marvelously flexible instrument with which to do busi- 
ness. It can, also, be seen that the definition of a cor- 
poration as a "soulless being" is exactly accurate. 

Confronted by such a monster, the worker, single- 
handed, was taken at a dreadful disadvantage. He found 
himself dealing with an institution totally devoid of 
feeling, managed by men who disclaimed all responsibility 
for the acts they were committing, whose responsible 
owners he never saw and probably never had heard of. 
He was forced to toil in ramshackle buildings, built and 
arranged with no regard for his safety, but at the lowest 
possible cost. He was forced to work for such wages as 
the company saw fit to give him, and upon such terms as 
it chose to exact. The situation became intolerable. The 
condition of the slave was, in some respects, better. The 
slave always received a regular amount of food. The rent 
question never bothered him, and his clothing came with- 
out worry on his part. The corporation employe lived 
in daily fear of a reduction in wages, that would place 
his food, his housing and clothing in peril. The thought 
of sickness was a nightmare always, with him, except as 
he could forget it in drink. His sufferings were rendered 
the more acute by the fact of his political freedom, which, 
under his industrial slavery, became a mockery to him. 
The union was logically evolved out of the deplorable 

68 



conditions under which the worker lived and worked. 
He was forced, in self-defense, to organize against the 
corporation. By joining a union, the worker lost, of 
course, his theoretical industrial independence. But as, 
under the feudal system, the small peasant proprietor 
exchanged a freedom no longer of use to him for protec- 
tion of life and property, so the worker exchanged some- 
thing that didn't really exist, for living wages and decent 
working hours. The effect has been, however, doubly to 
enslave him: first, to the corporation from whom he 
receives his wages, but which exploits him by means of the 
"efficiency system," in spite of himself; and next to the 
union whose rules and regulations he must observe. 

If the corporation is a soulless being, responding only 
to the instinct of greed, the union is all soul, listening 
only to urgings of self-pity, sympathy and sentiment. 
Eeason doesn't seem to dominate the mental operations 
of either institution. This fact is, in reality, one of the 
main causes of the mess things are in at present. En- 
lightened self-interest doesn't get a chance to be heard. 
The union, though, is the logical concomitant of the cor- 
poration, and wouldn't, or, rather, couldn't exist without 
it. Men will not voluntarily surrender their freedom un- 
less they are threatened by some great imminent peril. 

The ease with which the sole ownership or control of 
our large corporations is transmitted to succeeding gen- 
erations has reintroduced into our industrial life an evil 
that it seemed had been destroyed. Enormous aggrega- 
tions of hereditary wealth are now a part of our financial 
life, and have added their quota to our industrial and 
economic problems. Many very wealthy families have 
created within themselves a tradition that has come to 
have almost the force of law, that some one favored child 
should inherit the bulk of an estate, which should, in turn, 
be transmitted in the next generation to another favored 

69 



ehild^and so Op, f or the purpose of continuing the con- 
trol of large enterprises. This tradition can be carried 
into effect most conveme^tly and with most assurance 
of success, by the incorporation of enterprises and the 
passing from generation to generation of the controlling 
interest in their various capital stocks. Thus, there ha6 
grown up here in the United States a system of heredi- 
tary privilege closely related to the operation of indus- 
try, that is causing an infinite amount of harm. The great 
defect of thje corporation is, that even under the owner- 
ship of those who have made it, it nourishes irresponsible 
management. Hereditary control of it promotes that 
tendency an hundred-fold. 

The direct industrial effect, therefore, of the corpora- 
tion has been to enslave the worker, first to itself and 
then to the union it has called into being through neces- 
sity on the worker ^s part of self-defense against its heart- 
less aggression and exactions. Next, to our whole system 
of corporations, through the ease with which their con- 
trol is transmitted from one generation to the next, is 
passing into what are practically absentee hands. 

Another accompaniment of centralized corporate con- 
trol of industry is the ever-increasing expense attached 
to it The business of a huge corporation ceases after 
a time to be anybody's, and becomes everybody's busi- 
ness. The only real control the stockholders exert over 
a large company is through the dividends which they de- 
mand. These must be met. That done, the managers 
and directors feel that they have given the stockholders 
all the recognition they are entitled to. Companies sub- 
sidiary or auxiliary to the main company are organized, 
with its officers and directors or favored stockholders as 
incorporators, to supply it with materials or to perform 
a portion of its work. Through this means the cost of 

70 



materials to the corporation, and of its work, is amazingly 
increased. 

The ease with which the finances of a; great corporation 
may be juggled or manipulated is another great evil. Our 
great industries have nearly all taken their rise in small 
beginnings, generally from the modest, humble efforts 
of a single man striving to better himself. Through thrift, 
intelligence and concentration of thought and purpose, 
he made a start and put his business on the high road 
to success. He reached a point, however, where he saw 
a limit to what he could do as an individual. He incor- 
porated his business, for there are no limits to what a cor- 
poration, intelligently managed, can accomplish. He cap- 
italized his business for — let us supose— $500,000, an 
amount that presumably equaled the amount he had in- 
vested in it, plus the estimated value of some patents, 
copyrights or franchises— all forms of special privilege 
that he might have acquired, or taken out— that he con- 
sidered worth to him $100,000. Thus, his capital repre- 
sented $400,000 of real or public wealth, and $100,000 of 
private wealth. 79 

Under his corporation, ihe affairs of our embryo "Cap- 
tain of Industry" continued to prosper to such an extent 
that his volume of business became too great for his 
enterprise to handle. He required more money in his 
business. Borrowing at the bank on the notes of hia cor- 
poration guaranteed by himself, possibly became em- 
barrassing. He decided to issue bonds; but before doing 
so, he increased his capital stock, first obtaining the con- 
sent of the authorities of the state from which he re- 
ceived his charter. To justify the increase, he arbitrarily 
wrote up the value of his plant on his books, as well as 
the value of his patents, good-will, etc. , imparting to 
them a total ostensible value of $1,000,000. A bond issue 
of $500,000 seemed enough to satisfy all possible future 

71 



demands. The necessary mortgage to secure the bonds 
was put on his plant for that amount, and the bonds sold 
either at once or through a period of time. He probably 
did not invest in his plant all of the money realized on 
bonds, but used a portion of it in extending his business. 
Suppose $250,000 were put back into the plant. Then 
there would be represented by the concern $650,000 worth 
of real and $850,000 worth of fictitious wealth. This satis- 
fies him for a time, but his business is growing, the profits 
are large and a big surplus has been amassed. He de- 
cides to increase his capital stock to $1,500,000. This in- 
crease he issues to himself as a stock dividend and wipes 
out his surplus. Since his incorporation, he may not have 
invested one dollar of his own money in his concern 
except the surplus that he capitalized when he declared 
a stock dividend. By these manipulations there have 
been added only $250,000 to the value of his invested 
plant, in addition to what went into repairs and deprecia- 
tion — a sum arbitrarily charged out of earnings to care 
for the invisible deterioration of the buildings and ma- 
chinery. He added to the fictitious wealth of the coun- 
try, however, $750,000, making the value of his institution 
$1,150,000 in real, and $850,000 in fictitious wealth. 

Bonds are secured, of course, by a mortgage upon a 
concern's property, and run for long periods of time — 
occasionally for fifty years and even longer — but are 
often -"callable" at a premium, that is, can be retired at 
the expiration of about one-half the duration of the term 
for which they are issued. In the case under considera- 
tion, $500,000 of bonds were issued running, let us sup- 
pose, for fifty years at 5 per cent per annum, callable in 
twenty-five years, at 103. If the bonds ran to maturity 
the concern would be obliged to pay 250 per cent interest 
in addition to the principal. If called, the interest would 
amount to 125 per cent, and there would be a premium of 

72 



$15,000 to meet upon the principal. Long before the 
bonds had been redeemed, or even "called," the plant 
upon which they had been issued would have become obso- 
lete, most probably, both as to building and equipment, 
but the interest or principal, unfortunately, never reach 
a condition of obsolescence, but are always alive and 
active until paid. 81 

Business transacted upon the basis of fictitious wealth 
is feverish and unhealthy, for "watered stock," as a stock 
issue out of all proportion to the value of the plant is 
called, demands its dividends the same as good stock 
does, and money is diverted to this purpose that belongs 
of right to the business itself. Frequent borrowing is 
necessary— not a borrowing that contemplates simply 
turning over the borrowed money at a profit, followed 
by repayment of the loan, but a borrowing as illustrated 
above, extended over a period of years. Issues of bonds 
are put forth that mortgage the future to meet present 
needs. Preferred stocks — stocks bearing fixed rates of 
interest higher than the customary bond rate, that may 
or may not be cumulative — are sold at times when bonds 
cannot be marketed profitably. 

The next step in the progress of our "Money Captain" 
would be to consolidate with some other concern, or buy 
it out, when a new manipulation would be effected. He 
might then organize a holding company to own and oper- 
ate a number of businesses, any one of which might have 
a larger capital than the company that controlled it. The 
wealth of the holding company would be absolutely "fic- 
titious," as in its own name it would not own a dollar's 
worth of physical plant. 

Such manipulations put industry under an awful bur- 
den, for only real wealth produces anything. When the 
corporation had labor by the throat, it could very easily 
pass a large share of this burden on to the worker by 

73 



reducing wages in lean years when the outlook for divi- 
dends became slight. The union has stopped this practice. 
The worker has refused to bear this burden any longer. 
Reduction of wages is no longer among the expedients 
possible to a corporation manager seeking ways of rais- 
ing dividends. This burden has now been passed to the 
public, by raising prices. A raise in prices in one com- 
modity will cause a similar raise all along the line. Then 
wages must be raised to meet the increased cost of things, 
necessitating another raise, and so on. The merry race 
between cost and price continues, an endless race under 
the present system, until the whole machine ceases to 
function and chaos ensues. 

The economic effect of the corporation is to pile up at 
the expense of the public a huge mass of fictitious wealth, 
which has enslaved the consumer to a regime of ever ris- 
ing prices. The war, of course, very greatly augmented 
our difficulties, but the continually increasing cost of 
living would have gone on, had there been no war. The 
worker and the salaried man and woman find that their 
greatly increased emoluments have brought them no gain. 
In many cases, probably in the majority, they are worse 
off than before. 

The metaphysical evils that follow in the train of cor- 
porate control of industry are even more grievous than 
the industrial and economic wrongs they cause. 

Eras of corporate control of or presence in industry 
or business have always been times of excessive specula- 
tion. It was so in Rome, in England and France 
during the early days of the colonization of North Amer- 
ica, and it is true today, or was, just before the war. 
Today, the big corporation is not exclusively an instru- 
ment of business. It is to an almost equal extent, a means 
of promoting stock gambling. During an exciting period, 
when speculation is brisk, many times the total number 

74 



of shares of stock issued by those of our large corpora- 
tions whose stocks are extensively traded in, are sold. 82 
The controllers of our great companies are as much in- 
terested in the performances of their stocks in the market 
as they are in the success of the companies themselves in 
their respective businesses. Funds are diverted to specu- 
lation which should be used in the prosecution and ex- 
pansion of legitimate industry. Often the craze for specu- 
lation seems to assume an almost national scope. Over- 
speculation ensues, that leads inevitably to a financial 
crash or panic. 83 The effect of the whole stock gambling 
system is pernicious, and a return to it as it existed before 
the war should never be permitted. 

The ease with which great fortunes apparently are piled 
up is demoralizing to the public mind. Honest toil is be- 
coming an absurdity. The craze to get rich quick and 
without work is affecting nearly everyone. 

The unwise, and in some instances spectacular, uses to 
which many great fortunes are put have aroused not only 
much reasonable disgust, but also an inordinate amount 
of envy, hatred and malice that paralyzes the public mind 
in attempting to find a solution for present-day problems. 

The control of the corporations over our industrial sys- 
tem has become so complete that the individual has no 
longer the chance of getting a start that he once had. 
Today, nearly all young men, thrown upon their own 
resources are obliged to go to work for the corporations 
in whose service most of them expect to spend their lives. 
The desire eventually to own one's own business no longer 
animates the aspiring mind of the average youth. Such 
a thing has become a dream — an idle thing for a sensible 
young man to entertain. Natural, legitimate ambition is 
stifled, at least, if not destroyed. 

The corporations, by their extremely aggressive and 
unscrupulous methods, have offended sorely the general 

75 



sense of justice of our people. This is seen in the increas- 
ing severity of the laws enacted against them. Our 
Government was once the most liberal in the world in 
its treatment of wealth. The general public would toler- 
ate no legislation hostile to wealth. Great privileges and 
opportunities were conferred upon it. The possessors of 
great wealth commanded a respect and influence second 
to none in every community. Today all that is changed. 
The present attitude of the Government toward wealth 
can only be paralleled by that of the Roman Empire in 
its decadence when it conscripted the possessions of its 
wealthiest citizens at will. 84 But it is the supposed bene- 
ficiaries of the corporate system themselves who really 
suffer most. They are released from the necessity of 
considering the problems of personal maintenance and 
support, but are thus forced to undergo an artificial or 
hot-house development that is prohibitive, in most in- 
stances, of real advancement or creditable achievement. 
They are no different from other persons, naturally or 
potentially, but under the circumstances and conditions 
of their lives, they become the sort of creatures the so- 
cialists would make of us all — idle, irresponsible, pleasure- 
loving. 

The corporation has undoubtedly accomplished much 
good. It enabled us to settle and develop that part of 
the national domain that lies west of the Mississippi, with 
a quickness and despatch unparalleled in history. Our 
present industrial greatness is due solely to the cor- 
poration. The first effect, undoubtedly, of large com- 
binations of industrial concerns was to lower prices. It 
has brought many things within reach of all the people 
that otherwise most probably they would not have had. 
The evil results of the corporation, however, far outweigh 
the good. It is really a "throwback" and has no place in 
the world of today. It is a survival of a thought that saw 

76 



no wrong in human slavery, that could conceive of no 
nobler object of government than that of world con- 
quest, that saw no other way of performing the work 
of every-day life except through the unrequited toil of 
the masses. To such a thought there could be no wrong 
in enslaving men industrially and economically, even 
though in theory they were free. 

Under the instrumentality of the corporation, Col- 
lective Effort in Rome achieved the same results it is 
achieving here. To read Ferrero, Cunningham, Warde 
Fowler and Abbott on the conditions that existed in the 
Roman Republic just before its fall is to read almost from 
the morning newspaper, such a striking similarity is there 
between the conditions that prevailed then, and those 
prevailing now. A number of irresponsible dictators have 
arisen, just as in Rome in the last days of the 
Republic. Labor leaders openly defy the courts. Capi- 
talists do so covertly. Respect for law and order is pass- 
ing. Men no longer feel that the law is their best pro- 
tection, but that safety lies in private and irresponsible 
organization. Each one of these various associations, 
labor unions, corporations or associations of each, has 
its own "Boss," who is responsible only to itself. These 
organizations make rules and regulations unknown to 
the law 5 of land, which the public is forced to obey. In 
other words, we are experiencing a reign of "private 
law" just as Rome did. Are we going the same way? 
There was no great dearth in Rome. The fall of the Re- 
public did not proceed from starvation of the people, as 
did that of the French monarchy. It came about through 
national demoralization caused by Collective Effort that 
made the Dictatorship a necessity. 

So, now, there is no great lack of anything. No normal 
being is out of work except from choice or sickness. 
Wages are greater and the general standard of comfort 

77 



higher than ever before in all history. Yet we hear talk 
of a revolution. Many people seem to think that 
by a general overturn things will somehow be 
righted and everyone get a larger share. Such an aberra- 
tion of mind can be traced directly to the metaphysical 
effects of corporationism. Under its operations the na- 
tional mind has become unsettled. So easily are great 
fortunes gotten under its auspices, with so little effort, 
apparently, that it seems absurd to work for a pittance. 
Let us all, then, it is suggested, seize this wealth which 
has been acquired unjustly, and enjoy it ourselves. 

It now remains to consider the condition of the most 
important part of our people— the farmers — under the 
present regime. 

The farmer conducts his business strictly upon an indi- 
vidual basis, and in its prosecution exercises at once the 
functions of laborer and capitalist, producer and con- 
sumer. (The capital of a farmer consists of his land, 
buildings and equipment necessary to run his farm.) 
The very nature of the business and the complex rela- 
tions the operator bears to it, are such that it can be 
conducted in no other way if satisfactory results are 
looked for. True, the farmer may have his organizations 
of various sorts and for various purposes, but these are of 
no assistance to him in planting or harvesting his crops. 
A successful harvest depends entirely upon the indi- 
vidual knowledge and skill of the farmers themselves. 
It is impossible to conduct the day's work on a farm on 
fixed hours or conditions, if efficiency in its prosecution 
is desired. 85 In consequence, the farmer and his ■" hired 
man" work harder and for longer hours than any other 
portion of our citizens. It is true, of course, that farm 
labor is nowhere near as exhausting as mill or factory 
work. The farmer is his own "efficiency expert." The 
work, also, is performed amid salubrious surroundings. 

78 



Pure air and water, good wholesome food in plenty, and 
comfortable homes, is the general lot of farmers. The 
necessarily isolated situation, however, of the farms with 
relation to each other and the town, deprives farmers and 
their families of much of the social recreation that town 
and city dwellers find so easily. The irksomeness of toil, 
commonly sustained from daylight till dark, and the lack 
of social opportunities, so greatly outweigh, in the minds 
of many, all the advantages of rural life, that it is often 
unendurable. When there is added to these disadvantages 
the lack of money that prevails in many rural sections 
east of the Mississippi, especially, it is not strange that 
farmers ' sons no longer follow the calling of their fathers, 
but seek the large cities, where, with shorter hours and 
under far more congenial surroundings, they can earn 
more money in a month than they could at their homes 
during an entire year. 

The High Cost of Living has affected the farmer more 
seriously, perhaps, than the rest of us. Time is becoming 
more and more a prime factor in his work, especially in 
summer, and he is forced to purchase time-saving, but 
expensive, machinery, such as automobiles, tractors, 
threshing implements, etc. These are all manufactured 
by corporations that, as shown before, exact an increas- 
ingly heavy toll. In fact, nearly everything the farmer 
buys is the product of some form of corporative activity. 
The same condition confronts him when he sells his pro- 
duce. He is forced to dispose of it through middlemen, 
well organized, who absorb, in various ways r far more 
than a just share of the profits. As a result, the farmer 
is caught between the corporations that grind him when 
he buys ^nd the co-operative arrangements of those who 
fleece him when he sells; and is being slowly ground to 
powder. His predicament is even worse than that of the 
laboring man. The severity of his condition is materially 

79 



increased by the petty, shortsighted restrictions that many 
small communities throw around him at the instigation 
of the small country storekeepers. In many towns and 
villages the farmer is required to take out a license be- 
fore he can sell his produce from house to house, or upon 
the street. The object of this is, of course, to prevent 
the farmer from invading the retail market, and to force 
him to "trade out" his produce, in part, at the stores. 

This proceeding is a form of Collective Effort in which 
the v local governmental machinery is used for the sole 
benefit of a certain class of the community. Looked at 
from the standpoint of abstract justice, it is a clear and 
flagrant invasion of private right. 

The result is that in many localities, the farms are 
being abandoned. The editor of a newspaper in one of 
the smaller towns in southwestern Michigan, is quoted as 
stating that between the town limits and his own farm, 
a distance of but a few miles, there are twenty-two houses, 
nine of which are deserted, and the farms practically 
abandoned. In New England the abandoned farm is far 
more often the rule than the exception. But from every 
agricultural section of the country, even from those west 
of the Mississippi, where the farmers are said to be roll- 
ing in wealth, is heard the same story, of dissatisfaction 
and discontent with the conditions of rural life. 

The United States Government was the first ever estab- 
lished among men with the proclaimed purpose of secur- 
ing to the individual certain inherent rights. The pur- 
pose of its founders was the noblest that ever animated 
any body of men anywhere. They thought they had ac- 
complished their purpose, when they gave to their coun- 
trymen the Constitution. They thought they had secured 
to every individual the highest possible degree of liberty 
compatible with law and order; and so they had. The 
corporation, like Topsy, "jest growed." It is here, 

80 



gigantic in power and resources. It is depriving each one 
of ns of the exercise of our rights under the Constitution. 
It not only, however, violates our Constitutional rights, 
but is making a mockery of our Divine heritage as re- 
vealed to us by Jesus Christ, which forms the ideal our 
nation is striving to attain. 



81 



SECTION 8. 

The Way Out. 

The evils involved in corporate control of industry have 
long been apparent. In spite, however, of all the meas- 
ures that have been taken through many years to curb 
and thwart their activities, they have continued on in 
their conquering course. The career of the Standard Oil 
Company, the "American Beauty " of corporations, shows 
the folly of governmental control of corporations. For 
forty years or more, every governmental agency in the 
country attempted to prevent this corporation from se- 
curing a monopoly in the merchandising of petroleum and 
its by-products. How well they succeeded is a matter 
of common knowledge. The iron and steel business of the 
country is practically controlled by the " Steel Corpora- 
tion." It has some competition; but, if necessary, it could 
in all probability drive any one of its competitors out of 
business. 

Experience has shown that as an instrument of indus- 
try the corporation is too flexible to be controlled. What- 
ever is devised legally to curb it will be evaded or 
thwarted. "When the Standard Oil Trust was broken up 
it was supposed that the monster had received its death 
blow. Its many constituent companies are today operat- 
ing as separate units, all under one head, however, with 
as satisfactory results to their owners as before the "trust 
was busted." Governmental control is impossible. The 
corporation cannot be made to function in accordance 
with Americanism and the teachings of Christianity, for 
it is the product of a thought that never knew either. If 

83 



it is suffered to remain among us, it will lead us directly 
to Socialism, its logical finish. Compared to untangling 
the awful snarl a few years of Socialism would get us 
into, solving the present problems would be child's play. 
The one will require but a few years — the other, centuries. 
Hence the corporation must be destroyed. But how shall 
it be done, and what shall be put in its place? 

There are certain immutable laws underlying the 
transaction of the business of daily life that cannot be 
transgressed with impunity. One is, that there must be 
progress, an ever upward and onward advancement, or 
the movement will be downward and backward. The 
world does not move on the level. It goes either upward 
or downward. The processes of manufacture, of trans- 
portation, etc., and the general standard of living must 
continue ever to improve, or they will all tend to retro- 
grade. Another is, that the worker must have the right 
to possess, enjoy and transmit a fair portion of the fruits 
of his toil, be it mental or physical, or, as in most cases, 
a combination of both. There must be no drastic inhibi- 
tion of individual effort. In other words, the individual 
must be permitted to obey the same law of progress that 
underlies activities in general. Business itself must be 
permitted to act in accordance with this law, so long as 
it obeys the moral code. Wealth must be allowed a fair 
return, but greed and avarice that are, in the last analysis, 
the worst enemies of wealth, cannot be tolerated. 

The most striking thing in history is the gradual evo- 
lution of man in the mass, from a thing without a soul 86 
to an entity, made in the image and likeness of God, for 
"Whom all things were made. Man's struggles in this 
process have been terrific. First, he was free, as the 
beasts are free ; then, with dawning intelligence, came 
privilege, that threw the great masses into slavery; then 
he secured ownership of himself and became a part of the 

S3 



state to which he owed allegiance, only to find himself 
industrially and economically a slave, although politically 
free. In this latter state he finds himself today. But the 
slavery of today is not the result of the operations of 
institutions evolved from modern thought. It comes about 
through the presence among us of institutions that trace 
their origin to antiquity — institutions that we have, in 
reality, outgrown. They are producing here, today, the 
same evils they wrought in Rome ; but Roman statesmen, 
in ignorance of their inherent iniquity, suffered them to 
exist and function until the Republic fell. 

We have, however, the blessings two thousand years of 
Christianity have brought the world, an influence for 
good that Rome did not have. Our industry, also, is 
founded theoretically on the free worker, a fact, too, that 
gives us a very great advantage over Rome in solving this 
question. 

The individual now demands that he be made free 
actually as well as theoretically. All the present unrest 
and turmoil are but the yearnings of the individual for 
his inherent rights. The time has come, therefore, when 
these aspirations must be satisfied. There may have been 
a time when Collective Effort was necessary, even in the 
history of our own country. That time is past now. Our 
progress as a nation has been so rapid that we have trav- 
ersed in less than a century and a half what it took Rome 
more than seven centuries to traverse. 87 . "We must, there- 
fore, as the final act in the development of the individual, 
place all industry on an individual basis. Man, in his 
individual capacity, is now equal to all the problems that 
may confront him. He no longer needs the aid of a cor- 
poration or a labor union. From now on, Collective Effort 
of any sort would only shackle him and hinder his ad- 
vancement. It has, in reality, been his greatest curse 
through all past time, but this fact is not yet understood. 88 

84 



The practical side of this question presents, of course, 
many difficulties. Men, however, in doing right, should 
never count the cost; neither in doing right are they ever 
penalized. The South honestly felt that without slave 
labor it would perish financially, and after the Civil War 
it was thoroughly prostrated for a generation. Today, 
however, it is far richer on a basis of freedom than the 
old ante bellum slave holders ever dreamed of its being 
on any basis. So, now, our nation in destroying these 
monsters that have so curiously projected the phenomena 
of ancient industrial life into our midst, may pass through 
some lean years; yet, once they are passed, there will 
ensue a period of happiness, prosperity and content too 
transcendant for our present thought to conceive. 

There are several ways of destroying the corporation 
as an instrument of industry. One is, for the Government 
to refuse transportation in interstate commerce to the 
products of domestic corporations, and place an embargo 
on the products of all foreign corporations. This would 
confine their operations to the states under which they 
were chartered, and would probably result in their ulti- 
mate extinction ; but the process would be slow. Another 
would be, to tax them out of existence, force them to liqui- 
date and dispose of their properties to individuals. The 
third would be for the Government to buy them out on the 
basis of the actual value of their physical plant, split up 
their properties into their constituent parts, and sell the 
different parts to the highest bidders, requiring forever 
after individual ownership and operation of them. Dur- 
ing the interim between acquiring the properties and dis- 
posing of them, the Government could operate them and 
sell their products in the market; in other words, keep 
industry alive. 

When industry is on an individual basis, the tendency 
will be away from centralization instead of toward it, as 

85 



under the present system. (Indeed^ tile process of cen- 
tralization is now well-nigh, perfected;)! Industrial con- 
cerns will be getting smaller and smaller and will mul- 
tiply in number. Localization of certain industries in 
particular districts will disappear for the most part. 
Concerns will find enough to do in supplying the local 
market and will cease attempting to control the business 
of the world. The wool grower of Wyoming will buy 
cloth made at home— not in Massachusetts or England. 
Each state will become more or less of a self-sustaining 
unit. Each section of the Union will become practically 
entirely so. The cost of things will go down because the 
cost of transportation will be reduced to a small fraction 
of what it is now. Competition regulated by wise laws 
will lower cost still further. As the individual progresses, 
a new era of inventions will set in, that will surpass to an 
infinite degree all predecessors, and prices will descend 
continually. 

Lastly, the basis of all freedom, the private ownership 
of property, will be preserved. Freedom started when 
the right of private ownership was first recognized, and 
will perish when the right is denied. There will be no 
drones under such a system, and no slaves. All will be 
busy and contented, for everyone will be glad to work 
when he is assured of a fair reward for his toil. Under 
this system, every man will be protected in his inherent 
rights, which are, in industrial terms, a right to an edu- 
cation, a living wage, one sufficient to support him with 
a surplus over for healthy recreation and saving, and pro- 
tection against sickness and old age. These things are 
all that a man is entitled to. The rest is up to him. 

As there will be no great corporations international in 
scope of activity, so there will be no international labor 
unions. There will be no necessity for them. The good 
that the labor unions have accomplished will be enacted 

86 



into law, but the institutions themselves will be discarded* 
There will be no associations of employers. They will, be 
prohibited by law. There will tea union in each plant 
that will deal directly with its owner or operator, for it 
would be unjust at first to place the workers on an indi- 
vidual basis in dealing with their employers. As time goes 
on, however, and enlightened self-interest has a chance 
to act, the union, as we understand it today, will cease 
to exist. 

Representatives of the union will have a voice in the 
concern's management and will be thoroughly acquainted 
with its business affairs. Profit sharing will be very 
largely adopted, no doubt. The owner of a factory and 
its workmen will be partners in the enterprise. Questions 
affecting the welfare of a concern and its employes will 
be decided at home, by men who know each other, and 
know thoroughly everything involved in the business they 
are conducting; and not in Wall Street, Washington, At- 
lantic City or some other place a thousand or more miles 
distant from the scene, by men who may never have 
heard of the institution, and may never have met a single 
person connected with it. 

As the books of the enterprise will always be open to 
the inspection of the union's representatives, and hours 
and conditions of labor regulated by law, "strikes" will 
no longer be necessary. In case of disputes, arbitration 
will invariably be resorted to, as the human element will 
always be present and in active operation, employer and 
employe will assist each other, as a matter of enlightened 
self-interest. 

Whatever artificial distinctions among men may have 
arisen here as an effect of corporate activity will dis- 
appear. The ambition of every employe will be to be- 
come an employer himself, and as time goes on, the de- 
centralizing tendencies of Individualism will make it pos- 

37 



sible for more and more of them to achieve this natural, 
healthy desire. 

In individual ownership and operation of industry, the 
farmer would find himself on the same basis as everyone 
else in the land. Producer and consumer would meet each 
other on nearly equal terms if all the forms of Collective 
Effort were destroyed. This, in and of itself, would solve 
most all of the financial problems of the farmer, and he 
would, in consequence of it, derive a greater proportion- 
ate return for his labor. Under present conditions, a few 
men are acquiring far more than they are entitled to, 
and the swing of their operation is toward an absolute 
autocracy in business. Under individualism in industry, 
the swing would be in the other direction, toward decen- 
tralization. The many would be acquiring more and more 
of this world's goods, and the "multis" would, after a 
time, entirely disappear. 

Under the operations of individualism, the farmer 
would be able to extend indefinitely the horizon of his 
life. He would no longer feel himself bound, his life 
circumscribed, himself and his family cut off from the 
rest of us. Because of the greater abundance of things 
that adorn existence, which would be placed within his 
reach, the life of the farmer would be more pleasant, 
more persons would be attracted into it, and thus the 
grave danger that confronts our people, of a decline in 
our farming population, sufficient to curtail seriously our 
agricultural output, would be averted. 

Vicious as it is, private ownership of our railroads, 
telegraphs, telephones, etc., subject to strict governmental 
control, must continue until science and invention give us 
relief ; for public ownership and operation of these institu- 
tions would be infinitely more dangerous. There is relief, 
too, in sight. 

The transportation problem is already in process of 

88 



solution. Ten years from now, the railroad question 
will probably have ceased to bother us. Within that time 
both the flying machine and the airship undoubtedly will 
have superseded the railway as a carrier of passengers, 
mail and light or perishable freight and express matter. 
The railroad will be used only in transporting heavy or 
bulky raw materials, live stock, and similar articles, with 
the amount of business done in such lines continually 
decreasing. 

Air transportation should be confined exclusively to 
private hands, subject to strict governmental supervision 
and control both as to management and tariffs. Thus, 
responsibility for a failure in service will be definitely 
fixed and punishment therefor sure and speedy. These 
systems would all be small for there are limits to what 
an individual can supervise. They would never become 
anywhere near equal to the Government in power or re- 
systems ; for any association among individuals operating 
different lines either competing or complementary would 
be prohibited, except as it might relate to promoting 
the actual service itself. Not being incorporated, there 
would be no stocks or bonds to be sold. Their owners 
would not spend their days manipulating the stock mar- 
ket or consulting the ticker. Efficiency of service and 
economy of operation would be the sole concern of these 
gentlemen. "What the public would gain from such an 
arrangement does not require mention. 

Through properly constituted agencies, the public 
should watch carefully the progress of invention. Our 
public service institutions or their auxiliaries right now 
are said to be in possession of many inventions that 
would vastly improve their service, in some instances 
revolutionize it. They have suppressed them, however, 
because their installation would " scrap" much of their 
present plant and equipment. 

89 



Unshackled invention will some day make each indi- 
vidual pretty nearly independent of our present-day pub- 
lic service institutions. The individual has not begun to 
come into his own yet. 

Civil liberty demands, as a condition necessary to its 
preservation, a state of constant change in the ownership 
of property. Property must never be allowed to remain 
in the possession of one set of owners for any length oi 
time — for more than one life. Hence, our laws of inheri- 
tance should also receive a thorough overhauling. 
It is contrary to sound public policy to have 
anything savoring of her edit arism present in in- 
dustry ; neither should the law allow the creation of trust 
estates. A fortune should, upon the death of the owner, 
be immediately taken over by the state, and entirely con- 
verted into cash within five years. The proceeds should 
then be distributed — a fair portion to the Government, 
the remainder to the heirs. The creation of vast estates 
would be inhibited. The inheritors of money would be 
forced to go to work, for idle money produces but little. 
The constant sale of property would prevent centraliza- 
tion, and anything like monopoly would be impossible. A 
large amount of money would be constantly in circulation, 
resulting in good times. 

The reforms outlined above would go far towards realiz- 
ing the ideals of Americanism. They would mean the 
triumph of the great middle class, to which the great 
majority of men should belong. There will be no very 
rich, and but few very poor. This is in keeping with the 
eternal fitness of things. It is, also, the logical evolution 
of the great struggle of the ages — of the individual to 
liberate himself from the thraldom of Collective Effort 
They would save the individual, whose best interests are 
threatened as never before in the whole history of man- 
kind. There have always been a few freemen under every 

90 



former dispensation. The scheme the socialists propose 
would drive the very idea of freedom from the earth. It 
would bring forth a world of slaves. Not for such a 
result have all the heroes of past ages labored — did 
Washington toil, did Lincoln suffer, did Roosevelt dream, 
nor did the Saviour come among us. And Jesus pointed 
the way: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to 
you, do ye likewise unto them. ' ' ' l Thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thy might and thy neighbor as 
thyself.' ' Who is thy neighbor? Why, the other fellow. 
He is thy neighbor. Give him a chance. 

It is proposed, as a solution of present difficulties, that 
Labor and the corporations attempt to establish har- 
monious relations with each other. At first glance, this 
does seem to be the easiest and most satisfactory way 
out of our present troubles. In reality, however, nothing 
more dangerous, more subversive of the best interests of 
the individual and of the great general public was ever 
proposed. It would create a monopoly the like of which 
the world never yet saw. Redress of the wrongs that 
would surely grow out of such a combination would be 
almost impossible. We would have the evils of the 
mediaeval crafts and trades gilds system raised to the 
superlative degree, with a legislature absolutely controlled 
by the monopolists, if not composed of them. When the 
corporations have ceased to exist and wealth has passed 
into the control of individuals, then, and not until then 
should Labor and Capital be permitted to co-operate. 

The spirit, however, in which we approach the solu- 
tion of this problem will be the governing factor in the 
whole matter. It will determine whether or not American 
institutions will be preserved and the blessings of Lib- 
erty secured not only to us, but to posterity. The great 
lesson of history is that violence accomplishes no good. 
In fact, it always defeats the purpose it would achieve. 

91 



Rome became the prey of violent demagogues. The 
adoption of extra-constitutional means in carrying out 
measures ostensibly designed to promote the public good 
became common. This produced disrespect for the law — 
which, in turn, bred disorder. A condition of anarchy en- 
sued; and finally, all classes welcomed with fervent relief 
the establishment of the dictatorship. But the Roman 
Republic fell, and with it perished what little liberty 
there was in the world. The French monarchy was over- 
thrown with the approval of all right-thinking men. The 
violence that followed was so great, insecurity for life 
and property became so general, that Napoleon appeared 
as the logical necessity of the hour. But Liberty fled from 
France, not to appear again for many years thereafter. 
From its birth in the forests of Germany, Gaul and 
Denmark, or wherever it first saw the light, until the 
early years of our government, the Anglo-Saxon ideal, 
first in England and then here, continued on in its work 
of clothing the individual with an ever greater amount 
of power and opportunity. Again it seemed as if the in- 
dividual were coming into his own ; but African slavery 
still cursed the land. In 1828 the government adopted 
the protective tariff system. The effect of this far-reach- 
ing policy would not have been pernicious in the main, 
had it not been for the host of corporations that were 
allowed to spring up, battening on the home market the 
tariff laws turned over to them. The principle of pro- 
tection is, on the whole, just and beneficent when it is 
applied to industries controlled by individuals, but not 
when corporations have become entrenched in business. 
Law and order will prevail eventually over lawlessness 
and disorder. The average man is so constituted that he 
can't exist satisfactorily without personal security. To 
get it, he will give up everything else. As remarked 
before, too, the business of every-day life will force itself 



to be done; but it can't be done amid turmoil and unrest 
Therefore, the work of every-day life demands peace — 
the peace either of Liberty or of Slavery. If, in solving 
the problems now before us, we adopt violent methods, 
methods that involve the overthrow of law and lawful 
procedure, we will get the results those methods always 
produce — loss of liberty, and the dictatorship. It is 
necessary, therefore, if we wish to secure lasting benefits 
to ourselves and to coming generations, that we proceed in 
a lawful manner. The Constitution of the United States 
shows us the way. It is, to conduct ourselves in accord- 
ance with its provisions. There is nothing that we, as a 
people, should have, that we cannot obtain through our 
Constitution. We must hold to that above all things. It 
is the last hope of man. If it fails, if we discard it, then 
the ancient idea that the hard work of the world would 
not be done except by slaves, is correct. Ignorant, un- 
informed and ill-trained men always advise violence. 
Unable to bring reason to their assistance in carrying out 
their schemes, they counsel lawlessness, for it seems to 
be the easiest way. Haste always appeals to such men. 
Sound policy and wisdom, however, need time for their 
development, and a public mind, freed from the clouds 
of hate and fear. Our fathers, when they entered upon 
the Revolution, did so reluctantly, and only after re- 
peated provocation and insult ; but they had no fear in 
their hearts. The violent man is always, in reality, actu- 
ated by fear — fear of trusting his cause to the calm judg- 
ment of the people; afraid also of being hit first. Such 
men make poor leaders. When the crisis is reached, if 
they happen to be in command, their cause is lost. Any- 
one can recall countless instances in history that prove 
the truth of this assertion. It is the calm, serene mind 
that wins, whether that mind be of a man or of a nation. 

93 



And there is a reason for this — a great, overmastering 
reason. The calm mind overlooks nothing; never leaps 
without knowing where it will strike ; has the courage of 
confidence, not the recklessness of ignorance. 

To talk of a revolution in this country, where the peo- 
ple have full power, is the height of folly. Eevolution 
can only be justified where the people have no power. 
To "pull off" a revolution here and go to destroying 
life and property, when all that is required to change 
things is for a majority to vote a change, would be a 
wanton exhibition of hate and malice absolutely without 
a shadow of justification, and would, consequently, fail. 
The people must shun false teachers who come preaching 
violence, as they would a noxious, malignant disease. 

This is no time for personal reprisals. To hold indi- 
viduals responsible for the shortcomings of society is a 
crime against both man and God. The individual bene- 
ficiaries of the present system have simply taken advan- 
tage of the opportunities society deliberately threw in 
their way. Sweep away the system, and the evils com- 
plained of will disappear as a fog before the sun. Put 
industry on an individual basis and give men a fair show, 
and they will respond with a vigor and force undreamed 
of at present ; for this wonderful power, the power of the 
individual, has never had a fair chance yet, even here, to 
express itself to the full. Nor should confiscation of 
tangible property be thought of; that is, property that 
represents actual investment. The great-hearted, far- 
seeing Lincoln, wished to compensate the South for the 
emancipated slaves, because ownership of them had been 
recognized and protected by the law. There is a vast 
difference, in principle however, between ownership of 
human beings and ownership of inanimate brute property. 
The one is the basis of personal freedom, the other slavery 
in some form to every person connected with it. In 

94 



solving present-day problems, the utmost care should be 
exercised to prevent, even in remote degree, any viola- 
tion of the sacred rights of personal ownership of prop- 
erty. As Lincoln said, "Let not him who is houseless pull 
down the house of another, but let him work diligently 
and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that 
his own shall be safe from violence when built." Stealing 
is stealing, no matter whether it is done by a nation or by 
an individual, and punishment in some form always over- 
takes whomsoever is guilty of it. 

Hence, not in anger or hatred must this great question 
be solved, but in earnest, honest endeavor to deal justly 
with all men. If the people act in accordance with the 
principles of justice, common sense, and enlightened self- 
interest, following the procedures indicated in the Con- 
stitution, they will always retain the power that instru- 
ment has given them. If they are actuated by violence, 
hatred and malice, soon their power will be taken away 
from them, never to be regained until through suffering, 
sorrow, want, privation, maybe absolute slavery, they may 
have earned the right to enjoy it again. 

The great question really before the world today is, 
whether or not civilization can endure. Do the centraliz- 
ing tendencies present in every civilization carry the seeds 
of final dissolution ? In other words, must the world con- 
tinue to pass through periods of growth, maturity, decay, 
and subsequent rebirth? 

Can we not, with the experience of Rome before us as 
a guide, escape her fate; or must we go the same way? 
Must we disregard the teachings of history merely to 
save "Big Business' ' temporarily, and become an awful 
warning to coming generations instead of a splendid in- 
spiration? Why can't we now at this hour break the 
vicious circle in which the world has been moving through 
all past time, and lead the way out? Or, must some 

95 



nobler, braver, more self-sacrificing people, after the pres- 
ent civilization has passed away and the world has 
emerged from chaos again, do the work we would not or 
could not do ? 

The present world crisis is unique in its greatness and 
urgence. In proportion to its greatness is the grandeur 
of the opportunity it confers. Never before has mankind 
had such a chance. It will not have such another in 
centuries. Oh, that men could see the wonderful issues 
involved in what they are about to do, and measure up to 
them. Are they equal to the great task ? 



96 



SECTION 9. 

Conclusion. 

It seems to be appropriate at this point to examine, 
briefly, into some policies that it is reported are now being 
advocated by those desperate, maddened men and women 
known as the "radicals.". 

A college bred I. W. W. "persuader" not long since 
told a "prospect", that the "I. W. W." advises its fol- 
lowers to "grab." "We say to our men, Don't work; 
watch the pay roll and 'grab' it. Don't buy coal, 'grab' 
it. It is yours. Don't pay for a ride in a train, 'grab' it. 
The railroads are yours." Did that university graduate 
ever apply a little of the logic he must have learned in 
college to his formulae before he gave utterance to them? 
It does not seem probable. "Grab" can be possible only 
when there is something to "grab." There can be noth- 
ing to "grab" unless there is somebody producing some- 
thing. If all applied "grab" to the problems of life, and 
nobody produced anything, everything would be 
"grabbed" out in a short time, and everybody would 
perish. The policy of "grab" is special privilege carried 
to the last degree. It means living without work or 
thought, on the part of the "grabber." The managers of 
special privilege today have to think, even if they don't 
perform much manual labor. The beneficiaries of "grab" 
would live at ease, battening on the labor of their less 
fortunate brethren, without even being obliged to take 
the trouble to think. "Grab" can only succeed in a com- 
munity where the great majority are the producers, but 
are willing to sustain, in absolute idleness of body and 

97 



mind, a minority of consumers, a condition that never 
has existed, or never will exist in all the history of the 
world. 

Another favorite policy of the " radicals' " is that of 
"sabotage,'*' which may mean any number of different 
things, every one of them pernicious in the extreme. Cur- 
tailment of production, destruction of machinery or of 
goods, etc., m the process of manufacture, deliberate 
lowering of the quality of product, and inferior service 
rendered, are some of the things "sabotage" involves. It 
is hoped, by some, through the extensive use of sabotage, 
to overthrow industry and all governmental agencies, in 
the expectation that somehow, in the resulting chaos, 
something better will "turn up." The genial Micawber 
was always waiting for something better to "turn up," 
but the "radicals" do not propose to wait, but to pre- 
cipitate chaos in order to get something better. One 
plan is as silly as the other. Let us suppose a community 
in which a policy of sabotage was in general operation. 
In such a community, there would be a general 
curtailment of production, and lowering in the 
quality of goods produced. What would be the 
effect? Prices would necessarily advance. Who would 
suffer first? The wage earners and those living on 
small incomes. If the policy were continued long enough 
and thoroughly enough, the entire industrial machine 
would cease to function. But at what a cost? 
The great majority of our people, by that time, 
would be undernourished, and the prey of disease. What 
man with the true interests of his fellow men at heart, 
could advocate such a policy? 

"Grab" and "Sabotage" are the most diabolical poli- 
cies ever proposed. They strike not only at the vitals of 
society, but at the vitals of character, as well. Through 
them a man is urged to be treacherous and unfaithful, and 

98 



is advised to lower, intentionally, the standard of his 
work. If he persisted in such a course for any length of 
time, he would forget how to perform good work, and 
would decrease, automatically, his own personal efficiency 
and earning power. But not only that ; he would destroy 
his own character. Accepting full wages for work in- 
tentionally half performed, is stealing. A nation of 
thieves and idlers would be evolved if such a policy were 
generally followed, and what could such a nation ever 
accomplish? Work requiring co-operation and combined 
effort would fail at its outset through mutual distrust. 
The one thing that distinguishes civilization from sav- 
agery is the confidence that men now have in each other. 
Remove that confidence, the basis of modern life, and we 
would lapse into barbarism almost in the twinkling of an 
eye. Not with such creatures as a few years of "grab" 
and "sabotage" would evolve, could the brotherhood of 
man be established on earth ! 

As remarked before, the worker today finds himself in 
a more important, commanding position than ever before 
in all history. The progress he has made gives promise 
that he will gain greater things in the future. He must 
be faithful, however, to what he now has, before greater 
things will come to him. 

In the past, when the workers have seemed to be on 
the point of securing lasting good for themselves and 
their families, they have always followed unwise leaders, 
been guilty of terrible excesses, become afraid of each 
other, and finally welcomed with relief the dictatorship. 
Let them beware of what they do in this crisis ! 

Today, for reasons shown above, the individual has 
practically lost the chance the "fathers" thought they 
had given him when they framed the Constitution. Be- 
cause of the absence of the individual as a factor in 
industry, greed is on the throne. Men have become utterly 

99 



indifferent to the rights and aspirations of anyone but 
themselves, and the coterie to which they may belong. 
This is as true of the Unions as of the Corporations. Cor- 
poration managers and labor union chiefs, without a com- 
punction of conscience, apparently, will strive to their 
utmost to starve or freeze, or force in some other way, 
their employes, their employers, or the public into com- 
pliance with their demands. Such a state of mind ought 
not to exist, nor would it exist if employer and employe 
were brought face to face. Our business concerns and 
our labor unions have become so vast, that the individual 
(a pretty good fellow, take him all in all) is lost and has 
no voice in their management. 

The sole concern of these instititutions is ever and ever 
more money, more money. How they get that money, as 
long as they keep from getting entangled in the law, 
doesn't trouble them any. The result is, that plundering 
the public has been reduced to a science by both parties. 
Chicanery, ruthless oppression, evasion of the law or even 
open defiance of it, are resorted to as the occasion seems 
to require, without a thought as to the ethical principles 
involved, or their effect on men and women generally. In 
doing these things, the men responsible for them absolve 
themselves and ease their consciences by saying that the 
best interests of their several institutions demand that 
they be done. That statement alone is sufficient to con- 
demn them. Any system that rears up institutions whose 
best interests demand that they act solely with their own 
advantage in mind, with no thought for anything else, 
should be destroyed, and something better substituted. 
Greed, blind and pitiless, that now rules over us, must be 
overthrown. 

It is not strange in view of the present terrible situation 
that fanatics with schemes so absurd as scarcely to be 
worth the notice of any reasoning being, have secured 

100 



an extensive hearing from upright and enlightened men. 
The cures so far proposed would produce results much 
worse than the conditions they are intended to remedy. 
To a people marking time on the border line between bar- 
barism and civilization, such as the Eussians, for instance, 
communism may prove a benefit, but even that is doubtful. 
A people, however, accustomed to freedom and personal 
liberty, possessed of a high degree of civilization and 
enlightenment would find in communism nothing but a 
highway back to savagery. 

The present phase of the crisis finds two forms of Col- 
lective Effort struggling with each other for the mas- 
tery — corporationism and communism. Were commun- 
ism to win, the descent to chaos, as shown before, would 
be speedy and certain. A victory for corporationism 
would delay that descent but a few years, for its logical, 
inevitable finish is communism. 

Although each faction claims to hold the progress of 
the world in its especial keeping, in reality neither one 
can budge the world of thought an inch beyond where it 
is today. Both, in fact, regard the world as completed; 
though, no doubt, they have never clearly analyzed their 
conception of things, and probably do not realize the full 
import of what they do believe ; neither side really wishes 
to change things very much. 

The beneficiaries of the corporate system intend to 
enjoy indefinitely their special privileges and to transmit 
them unimpaired to their heirs. They are willing to dole 
out in charity what they don't need of their wealth, but 
they will not give up without a fight a single vital thing 
connected with the present arrangement. Not much 
chance of a change there. 

The communists, on the other hand, would have the 
state seize all industry and operate it in such a way that 
no more would be produced than would be sufficient for 

101 



the daily maintenance of the people ; or, in other words, 
they would declare, in effect, an everlasting general holi- 
day and set everyone in the community to amusing him- 
self. At any rate, such is their scheme, if their words 
are to be believed. What chance for any change for the 
better is offered there? In short, either party, if entirely 
successful, would be forced to strive to keep the world 
where it is, in order to keep it from going backward, for 
forward it would not go. The world, however, never 
stands still. 

The civilized world; that is, "Western Europe and 
America, must now confer upon its individual citizens the 
splendid opportunities to which they are entitled. 
Through all past aes, they have been in process of prepa- 
ration for these blessings, and have fairly won them. It 
is up to the individuals themselves to see that they get 
them. They must not shirk their task. But let them not 
think that they will find these things along the rose 
strewn paths of ease and pleasure. If they think that, 
they will soon be undeceived. The path of duty today is 
as rough and rugged as it ever was, and as of yore, only 
heroes may tread it. Nothing really worth having in this 
world ever came without a struggle. 



102 



APPENDIX I. 

We think of a system as an arrangement carefully 
worked out in theory before being committed to prac- 
tice. Feudalism was a gradual evolution from customs of 
long standing. 

Both Caesar and Tacitus mention, as a time-honored 
custom of the Germans, the practice common to all the 
tribes, of gaining a portion of their livelihood through 
plundering their neighbors. The method employed in 
carrying out the practice was very simple. A chieftain 
would announce that he was organizing a raiding party 
and call for volunteers. If he had been fortunate in past 
ventures, or gave promise of being so in the future, he 
would have no difficulty in raising his complement, the 
members of which were bound by oaths and their per- 
sonal honor never to desert him until he were either vic- 
torious or forced to retreat. After a successful foray, the 
spoils were divided among the party according to rank 
and importance of service. The spoils included slaves 
(prisoners of war) food, clothing, domestic animals and 
even land. 

Chieftainships were hereditary and their possessors 
bore various titles that indicated the existence not only 
of a noble but of a royal class as well. These chieftains 
were accustomed to surround themselves with bodies of 
trusted followers called Comitatus. 

AVhen the Angles, Saxons and Jutes conquered Britain, 
they naturally divided the spoils — land, chiefly — among 
themselves in accordance with immemorial custom and 
procedure. The chiefs exacted from their followers per- 

103 



sonal pledges of service in need, but these did not rest 
upon the land. 89 This defect may have caused the down- 
fall of the English defense during the Danish invasion. 
Cnut remedied this evil and divided the land among his 
followers upon the basis of - - military tenure, ' ' that is, 
the grantee agreed in return for the land, to render the 
grantor certain military or other aid, when called upon. 
These chiefs still further divided their land among their 
own personal followers on the same basis, and so on. 
This arrangement bore heavily upon the poor freeman, 
more especially of the conquered race, and numbers were 
forced to "commend" themselves to their neighboring 
lords ; that is, a man would place himself under the pro- 
tection of a lord, and agree, in return therefor, to per- 
form certain services for him. This resulted in the insti- 
tution of villainage, although it must not be understood 
that all freemen who "commended" themselves became 
villains. Many remained free. This arrangement was 
practiced in a varying degree from Cnut's time until the 
Norman Conquest. It is impossible to believe that the 
Normans introduced into England a system any different 
in principle from that which they found there. Norman 
feudalism was, no doubt, applied more thoroughly than 
the English had been, and was probably more highly 
developed ; but the same principle underlaid both systems 
— military tenure of the land. When the Pranks entered 
Gaul, after the downfall of the Roman military power, 
they found practices in vogue there, feudal in spirit, 
which they adopted or continued because those practices 
were identical with or similar to their own. 90 Conquering 
people do not take over from the conquered institutions 
with which they are totally unfamiliar. There were, it is 
true, similarities between the institutions of the Roman 
Empire and feudalism, but reason, as well as history, 
strongly indicate that the origin of mediaeval feudalism 

104 



lay, for the most part, in Germany, rather than in Rome. 
The barbarian mind would have rejected the institutions 
that finally led to feudalism, had it known in its experi- 
ence nothing like them. The fact that many feudal terms 
are in Latin proves nothing. The clergy, well drilled in 
Latin, which they made the universal language in church 
and state affairs, were the only class able to read and 
write during the Middle Ages, and they would naturally 
substitute a Latin word for a German, whenever the 
opportunity arose. Being more highly centralized, and 
enforced with more severity, Norman feudalism bore still 
more heavily upon the poor. Under the operations of 
privilege, the strong always became stronger, the weak, 
weaker. Still, however, feudalism in that wild, disordered 
time, was a necessity. Under its sway a reasonable de- 
gree of order was maintained, and the country protected 
against foreign aggression. In spite of its terrible se- 
verities and iron discipline, England progressed under 
feudalism, 91 and was made ready for the greater privi- 
leges conferred by the Renaissance and the discovery of 
America. 



105 



APPENDIX H. 

The following portions of the Magna Charta are of in- 
terest to Americans for to them the Constitution of the 
United States traces its source. 

Chapter XIV. 

A freeman shall not be amerced 92 for a small fault, but 
after the manner of the fault ; and for a great fault after 
the greatness thereof, saving to him his contenement 93 

(2) and a merchant likewise, saving him his merchandise, 

(3) and any other's villein, than ours, shall likewise be 
amerced saving his wainage 94 if he be fall with our mercy, 

(4) and none of the said amercements shall be assessed 
but by the oath of honest and lawful men of the vicinage, 

(5) Earls and Barons shall not be amerced but by their 
Peers, and after the manner of the offence, (6) no man of 
the Church shall be amerced after the quantity of his 
spiritual Benefice, but after his Lay tenement, and after 
the quantity of his offence. ' *■ 

Chapter XII. 

Assizes 95 shall be taken care of: If We be out of this 
Realm, our Chief Justicers shall send our Justicers through 
every county once in the year, which with the Knights of 
the shires, shall take the said Assizes in those counties^ 
(2) and those things what at the coming of our foresaid 
Justicers, being sent to take those Assizes in the counties, 
cannot be determined, shall be ended by them in some 

106 



other place in their circuit, (3) and those things which for 
difficulty of some articles cannot be determined by them, 
shall be referred to our Justicers, of the Bench, and there 
shall be ended. 

Chapter XX. 

No constable shall distrain any Knight for to give 
money for keeping of his Castle, if he himself will do it 
in his proper person, or cause it to be done by another 
sufficient man, if he may not do it himself, for a reasonable 
cause, (2) and if We do lead or send him an army, he 
shall be with Us in fee in our host, for the which he hath 
done service in our wars. 



Chapter XXV. 

One measure of wine shall be through our Realm, and 
one measure of ale and one measure of corn that is to say, 
the Greater of London, and one breadth of dyed cloth, 
Russets and Haberjects that is to say, two yards within 
the lists (2) and it shall be of weights as it is of meas- 
ures. 

Chapter XXVI. 

Nothing from henceforth shall be given for a writ of 
Inquisition nor taken of him that prayeth Inquisition of 
Life, or of Member, but it shall be granted freely, and 
not denied. 

Chapter XXVIII. 

No Bailiff from henceforth shall put any man to his 
open Law, nor to an oath upon his own bare saying, with- 
out faithful witnesses brought in for the same. 

107 



Chapter XXIX. 

No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be dis- 
seised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be 
outlawed or exiled or any other wise destroyed, nor will 
we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful 
judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. (2) 
We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any 
man, either Justice or Eight. 



108 



APPENDIX HI. 

The Mayflower Compact. 

In ye name of God, Amen. We whose names are under- 
written, ye loyall subjects of our dread Sovereigne Lord, 
King James, by ye grace of God, of Great Britaine, Franc 
and Ireland, King, defender of ye faith, etc., haveing 
undertaken, for ye glorie of God and advancement of ye 
Christian faith, and honour of our King and countrie, a 
voyage to plant ye first Colonie in ye Northerne parts 
of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly, and mutually, 
in ye presence of God, and one of another, covenant and 
combine ourselves togeather into a civill body politick, 
for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance 
of ye ends aforsaid, and by vertue hearof to enact, con- 
stitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, 
acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall 
be thought most meete and convenient for ye generall 
good of ye colonie, unto which we promise all due sub- 
mission and obedience. In witnes whereof we have here* 
under subscribed our names, at Cap-Codd ye 11 of No- 
vember, in ye year of ye raigne of our sovereigne Lord, 
King James, of England, France and Ireland, ye eight- 
eenth, and of Scotland ye fiftie-fourth. 
An. Dom., 1620. 



109 



APPENDIX IV. 

References. 

ilbsen, u An Enemy of the People," Act IV, Dr. Stock- 
man. 

2 Cunningham, "Western Civilization," Vol. I, pp. 73-74. 

3 Dodge, Col. Richard I., "Hunting Grounds of the Great 
West/' pp. 119 and following. 

4 Parkman, "Old Oregon Trail/' p. 213. 

5 Belden says, however, in his "Whife Chief/' that 
among some tribes after a tribal "surround" the game 
that had been killed was common property. This became 
the custom, probably, after the introduction of firearms. 
When the bow and arrow were used, each man could 
identify his game by the personal mark on the arrow, 
found in the carcass. 

6 Dodge, Col. Richard I., "Our Wild Indians." 

7 Cunningham, "Western Civilization/' Bk. I, Chapter 
I, Egypt. 

8 A supposition of the author. Contractors, it is true, 
flourished in Egypt as well as elsewhere in antiquity. 

d Bible, Lev. XXV, 8-16, 23-55. 

10 Bible, 1st Samuel, 8th Chapter. 

11 Cunningham, "Western Civilization," Vol. 1, Bk. 1, 
Ch. 3. 

12 Author's inference. 

13 Author's inference. 

14 Cunningham, "Western Civilization," Vol. I, Book II, 
Chapters 1 and 2. 

no 



15 Cunningham, "Western Civilization, ' ' Vol. I, Bk. II, 
Ch. 2. C. Osborne Ward, "The Ancient Lowly." 

16 Ferrero, "Greatness and Decline of Rome," Vol. 1, 
pp. 4 and 5. 

17 Ferrero, "Greatness and Decline of Rome," Vol. 1, 
pp. 5-9. 

18 Ferrero, "Greatness and Decline of Rome," Vol. I, 
p. 64. 

19 Warde Fowler, "Social Life at Rome," pp. 69-80. 

20 Ferrero, "Greatness and Decline of Rome," pp. 133- 
136. 

21 Ward Fowler, "Social Life at Rome," p. 74. 

22 Ferrero, "Greatness and Decline of Rome," Vol. I, 
pp. 40-42, 71-72. 

23 Ferrero, "Greatness and Decline of Rome," Vol. I, 
pp. 248-249. 

24 Author's inference. 

25 Thatcher and Schwill, "Europe in the Middle Ages," 
Ch. II. 

26 Cunningham, "Western Civilization," Vol. I, pp. 178 
note. C. Osborne Ward, "The Ancient Lowly," Chaps. 
XII-XX. 

27 C. Osborne Ward, "The Ancient Lowly," Vol. I, p. 
336. 

28 Ferrero, "Greatness and Decline of Rome," Vol. II, 
p. 308. 

29 Some writers have expressed surprise to find labor 
unions in antiquity. It would be more surprising to find 
that there were none. 

30 Fisher, "History of the Christian Church," pp. 87 
and following. 

31 Thatcher and Schwill, "Europe in the Middle Ages," 
p. 221. 

32 Cunningham, "Western Civilization," Vol. II, pp. 35, 
36. 

ill 



11 



33 See Appendix I. 

34 Duruay, "History of the Middle Ages," Ch. XV, pp 
200-211. Adams, "Civilization During the Middle Ages, 
Ch. IX, pp. 194-226. Guizot, "Civilization in Europe," 
Lecture IV, pp. 74-98. Stubbs, "Constitutional History of 
England." Pollack and Maitland, "History of English 
Law." Maitland, "Domesday Book and Beyond." Vin- 
ogradov?, "Villainage in England." 

35 Mrs. J. R. Green, "Town Life in 15th Century," 
Vol. I, Ch. V. 

36 Mrs. J, R. Green, "Town Life in the 15th Century," 
Vol. II, pp. 113-114. 

37 Mrs. J. R. Green, "Town Life in the 15th Century," 
Vol. II. 

38 Indeed, for the most part, outside competition was 
prohibited through the operation of feudal laws and 
privileges. 

S9 This, of course, relates to industry. 

40 Cunningham, "Western Civilization," Vol. II, p. 235. 

41 Cunningham, "Western Civilization," Vol. II, Book 
VI, pp. 230-243. 

42 0unningham, "Growth of English Industry and Com- 
merce," Modern Times, Pt. 2, pp. 628-632. 

43 John P. Davis, "Corporations — Their Origin and De- 
velopment," Vol. I, Ch. IV. 

44 J. P. Davis, "Corporations," Vol. II, p. 63. 

45 J. P. Davis, "Corporations," Vol. II, pp. 259-261. 

4e McMaster, "History of the People of the United 
States," Vol. V, Ch. 46. 

47 Webb, "History of Trades Unionism." 

48 McMaster, "History of the United States," Vol. V, 
Ch. 43. 

49 McMaster, "History of the United States," Vol. V, 
Ch. 43. 

112 



B0 Mrs. J. R. Green, "Town Life in the 15th Century/' 
Vol. II, Ch.VI, pp. 136-143. 

51 MeMaster, "History of the American People/ ' Vol. I, 
pp. 331-341. 

"Carl Marx, " Capital/' Vol. I, Part IV, Ch. 12. 

53 The schemes of Owen and others holding similar be- 
liefs, notably the Shakers, were communistic rather than 
socialistic. They founded communities, based on com- 
mon ownership of all property, to which they endeavored 
to attract converts. Owen's community at New Har- 
mony, Indiana, failed long ago. Some of the Shaker com- 
munities are in existence at the present time. 

54 Paraphrase of Statement of a writer whose name the 
author cannot find. 

55 Surprise was manifested in many quarters during the 
late War at the support and sympathy rendered to Ger- 
man Militarism by the believers in Nationalized Collective 
Effort generally — -both here and abroad. It was but the 
fulfillment of the old law of attraction. Like attracts 
similar. Both Socialism and Militarism are products of 
the same thought — that of tyranny and domination. 
Neither can find anything attractive in freedom. Neither, 
in fact, can exist, in an atmosphere of freedom. This 
fact alone condemns it. 

56 AVilliam Bradford, " History of the Plymouth Planta- 
tion," pp. 146-147. 

57 Carter, "Religion of Numa," p. 11. 

58 Stubbs, "Constitutional History of England," Vol. I, 
Ch. II; Cunningham, "Growth of English Industry and 
Commerce," Vol. I, pp. 30 and following. 

50 Cunningham, "Western Civilization," Vol. II, Book 
IV, Ch. I. 

60 Christianity had, however, returned to Britain before 
the close of that period. 

61 Stone, "England from Earliest Times to Great Char- 

113 



ter," p. 75; Stubbs, "Constitutional History of Eng- 
land/' Ch. IV, pp. 66-67. 

62 Fiske, "Beginning of New England," pp. 29-32. 

63 Fiske, "Beginnings of New England/' pp. 32-33. 

64 Stone, "England from Earliest Times to Great Char- 
ter," pp. 333-334; Pollack and Maitland, "History of 
English Law," Vol. I, pg. 88 ; Stubbs, "Constitutional His- 
tory of England," Vol. I, pp. 290-291. 

65 Bryee, "Holy Roman Empire." 

66 Fiske, "Beginnings of New England," p. 39. 

67 Cunningham, "Western Civilization," Vol. I, p. 180. 

68 Stubbs, "Constitutional History of England," pp. 336, 
and following. 

69 See Appendix II. 

70 Stubbs, "Constitutional History of England," Vol. 
I, p. 571. 

71 Fiske, "Beginnings of New England," pp. 98-99. 

72 Bancroft, "History of the United States," Vol. I, p. 
207. 

73 Fiske, "Critical Period of American History," Ch. I. 

74 See Appendix III. 

75 See pages 21 and following. 

76 Fiske, "Critical Period of American History," p. 65. 

77 Stubbs, "English Constitutional History," Vol. I, p. 85. 
Although a landless man might be possessed of all the 
inherent rights a landed man had, the law forced him to 
place himself in dependence upon some landed man, who 
would be responsible for him, in order that whatever pen- 
alties he might incur (and all were based on money in 
those days) could be readily collected. 

78 In some states, notably California, this may be done. 

79 The wealth of a nation naturally resolves itself into 
two kinds, real or public, and private. 80 

Ely, "Outlines of Economics," 3d Edition, p. 109. 
80 The real wealth of a nation is represented by the actual 

114 



value in money of all its physical plant, which is all its 
buildings, public or private, machinery, tools, railroad 
tracks, cars, dams, power-houses, transmission lines, and 
everything, in fact, that is devoted to the comfort and 
well-being of all the people. The private wealth of a 
nation comprises all evidences of funded debt, notes, pat- 
ents, copyrights, franchises, good-will, etc., its private 
citizens may possess, whose total destruction would fall 
entirely on private owners and not at all upon the public. 
There is also a third class which should be called ficti- 
tious. It is represented by the difference between the 
actual real value of the physical plant of a concern and 
the amount of private wealth resting upon it. 

81 The interest, of course, upon the bonds, and the sink- 
ing fund that must be established to provide for their 
payment, must both be taken out of income before there 
is anything available for dividends, which must be de- 
clared if the concern is to be considered a successful one. 

S2 Pratt, "The Work of Wall Street," pp. 45-46. 

83 The Federal Reserve establishment has removed, to 
a large extent, the opportunity of diverting money to New 
York, our stock gambling center, but as long as corpora- 
tions exist the dangers involved in overspeculation will 
hang over us. 

84 Cunningham, "Western Civilization,' ' Vol. I, pp. 
388-189. 

85 What efficiency in farm work means is nothing more 
or less than the proper nourishing of our people. 

86 Carter, "The Religion of Numa," p. 11: "The very 
psychological idea of the individual seems to have taken 
centuries to develop and to have reached its full signifi- 
cance only under the Empire.' ' It does not appear that 
this was exactly true of the Greeks or Jews. 

87 This relates to the centralization of wealth. 

88 Thirty years ago a large part of our industry was 

115 



conducted by individual employers. The workers, how- 
ever, had not then found themselves. It seems that the 
corporation with its heartless exactions was required to 
rouse them to a full understanding of what they were 
justly entitled to. That work being accomplished, the 
corporation is no longer needed, if it ever really was. 
It is conceivable that the work of individual develop- 
ment, had there been no corporations, might have gone 
on in peace and harmony. The short period required for 
man in the mass to realize what is due him shows at what 
a terrific pace the world of thought has been moving. 

89 Gunningham, " Growth of English Industry and 
Commerce,' ' Vol. 1, Sec. VI, pp. 101-102. 

90 Adams, "Civilization During the Middle Ages," 
Ch. 9. 

91 Maitland, "Domesday Book and Beyond/ ' p. 223. 

92 Fined. 

93 Such of his belongings as were necessary to his sup- 
port. 

94 His farm implements, which were left free so that 
the land could be cultivated. 

95 Superior County Courts for the holding of jury trials. 



116 



ANCIENT HISTORY. 

The following list comprises most of the works read 
either in whole or in part during the preparation of "The 
Present Crisis and the "Way Out." 

Myers — "Ancient History." 

Curtius — " History of Greece." 

Cunningham — "Western Civilization," Part I. 

Mommsen — "History of Rome." 

Ferrero — "Greatness and Decline of Rome." 

Warde Fowler — " Social Life at Rome." 

Abbott — "Society and Politics in Ancient Rome. 

Osborne Warde — "Ancient Lowly." 

Carter— "The Religion of Numa." 

MEDIAEVAL HISTORY. 



) j 



Thatcher & Schwill— "Europe in the Middle Age." 
Duruy — "History of the Middle Ages." 
Guizot — "History of Civilization in Europe." 
Bryce — "Holy Roman Empire." 
Adams — "Civilization During the Middle Ages." 
Cunningham — "Western Civilization," Part II. 
Fisher — "History of the Christian Church." 
Oman — "History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages." 
Gibbon— "Decline and Fall of Rome." 

ENGLISH HISTORY. 



7* 



Greene — "Short History of the English People. 

Stone — "England from the Earliest Times to the Great 

Charter." 
Mrs. Green— "Town Life in the 15th Century." 
Stubbs — "Constitutional History of England. 
Pollock & Maitland — "History of English Law. 
Maitland — "Domesday Book and Beyond. 

117 



jaw.' 

99 



Seebohm — "English Village Community. ' ' 

Vinogradoff — "Villainage in England/ ' 

Maine — "Ancient Law." 

Maine — c ' Village Communities. ' ? 

Maine — "Early Law and Custom." 

Cunningham — l ' Growth of English Industry and Com- 



merce." 



Gibbon — "Industry in England." 
Macaulay — "History of England." 

FRENCH HISTORY. 

Carlyle — "French Revolution." 
Michelet — "French Revolution." 
Mignet — "History of French Revolution." 
Theirs — "History of French Revolution." 
McCarthy—' ' French Revolution. ' ' 
And many memoirs, etc. 

AMERICAN HISTORY. 

Bancroft — "History of the United States." 

McMaster — "History of the American People." 

Fiske — "Beginnings of New England." 

Fiske — "Critical Period of American History." 

Parkman — "Oregon Trail." 

Dodge — "Our Wild Indians." 

Dodge — "Hunting Grounds of the Great West." 

LAW. 

Blackstone 's Commentaries. 

Davis — "Corporations — Their Origin and Develop 

ment. ' ' 
Taylor — "Private Corporations." 

118 



SOCIOLOGY AND POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

Spencer — "Sociology, Principles of." 
Walker — ' ' Political Economy. ' ' 
Ely — "Outlines of Economics." 
Marx— "Capital." 
Pratt— "The Work of Wall Street." 
Seager — ' ' Economics — Briefer Course. " 
Haney — "History of Economic Thought." 
Webb — "History of Trades Unionism." 

MILITARY HISTORY AND SCIENCE. 

Oman — "History of the Art of War in the Middle 

Ages." 
Jomini— "The Art of War." 
Upton— "Military Policy of the United States." 
Dodge, Col. T. A.— "Napoleon. 
Dodge, Col. T. A.— "Hannibal. 
Dodge, Col. T. A.— "Caesar. 
Dodge, Col. T. A.— "Great Captains. 



f 7 



BARNARD & MILLER 
■ fffg p »137 
PRINTERS 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



027 273 663 7 



